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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/29/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 9/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Additionally, (i) In response to the applicant’s remark: “The route information in Thoria serves as data upon which edge devices might make decisions, but it does not describe the controller configuring the edge device to make local routing decisions in accordance with a particular routing behavior specified by user intent.” Page 9 Lines 10-11.
In response to argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless; the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “receiving, by the controller and from the network administrator, user intent associated with configuring local setting of one or more edge device…”, the examiner interprets such that receiving… user intent associated with configuring local setting of one or more edge device as receiving a command or instruction from a user through a controller to configure or set a setting of an edge device.
Specifically, Zafer discloses the hub order configuration are manually change via a user interface by the network administrator through the network controller’s UI [0093], [0209-0210]. SD-WAN controller receives API call to update and synchronize configurations for all network edges, which then dynamically alters the flow of network traffic of the FE’s [0058], [0063], [0093], [0097].
(ii) In response to the applicant’s remark: “This disclosure in Thoria is directed to the distribution of global route information (e.g., network topology, OMP routes) to edge devices for regional scaling and peering, not to the configuration of local settings to achieve a particular routing behavior based on user intent input data.” Page 9 Lines 8-9.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to achieve a particular routing behavior based on user intent input data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(iii) In response to the applicant’s remark: “Furthermore, the Examiner's motivation for combining Thoria and Zafer, which is "redial actions for security issues" [Zafer: 0194], is specific to Zafer's context of anomaly remediation in a self-healing network. Zafer's "input data associated with an action" is specifically related to flow data and performance metrics used to identify and remediate network anomalies [Zafer: 0005], [0045]. This is a reactive, problem-driven input. In contrast, amended claim 1 explicitly recites "receiving, by the controller and from a network administrator, user intent input data associated with configuring local settings of an action to exhibit a particular routing behavior." The Applicant's "user intent input data" is broad and intended for proactive, general network management and orchestration, such as software updates, feature enablement, or specific routing preferences, as described in the application [0025], [0047]. The motivation to address "security issues" in Zafer does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to adapt Thoria's route information distribution system to receive Zafer's anomaly-specific input data and then use it to configure local settings on edge devices to achieve a particular routing behavior based on general user intent” Page 9 Line 12-25.
In response to applicant's argument concerning improper motivation to combine references, the examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, the examiner asserts that it is not necessary that a reference actually suggest changes or possible improvements which the applicant made, as stated in In re Sheckler, 168 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1971). The Patent & Trademark Office can satisfy the burden under § 103 to establish a prima facie case of obviousness "by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references." In re Fine, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (CA FC 1988). Therefore, the test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Even if the references in the instant case do not expressly suggest the specific combination claimed by the inventor, an assertion which the examiner contests, the courts have stated "to support [a] conclusion that claimed combination is directed to obvious subject matter, references must either expressly or impliedly suggest claimed combination or examiner must present convincing line of reasoning as to why artisan would have found claimed invention to have been obvious in light of references' teachings." Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, The Courts have already established that "having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Rationale different from applicant is permissible. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 9-12, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoria et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0052974 A1) (hereinafter “Thoria”) in view of Zafer et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0333631 A1) (hereinafter "Zafer”) and Narayan et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0127962 A1) (hereinafter "Narayan”).
With respect to claim 1: Thoria discloses method for routing control performed by a controller of a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN), the method comprising:
defining, by the controller, routing control settings associated with configuring the one or more edge devices to exhibit the particular routing behavior (routing controller providing routing information to the edge routers based on the information learned from the edge routers and other controllers [0017-0018], the routing controllers are determined based on a register request from the edge routers to the network facilitator [0021-0023]);
identifying, by the controller, a connection to an edge device of the one or more edge devices (the routing controllers establish connections, adjust connection and maintain connections with the edge routers [0017-0018]);
determining, by the controller and based on identifying the edge device, a routing control setting of the routing control settings to apply to the edge device (routing controller providing routing information to the edge routers based on the information learned from the edge routers and other controllers [0017-0018]);
sending, by the controller, the routing control setting to the edge device (routing controller providing routing information to the edge routers [0017-0018]);
However, Thoria does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the controller and from a network administrator, user intent associated with configuring local settings of one or more edge devices within the SD-WAN to exhibit a particular routing behavior ;
defining, by the controller and based on the user intent, routing control settings associated with configuring the one or more edge devices to exhibit the particular routing behavior;
wherein the routing control setting configures the edge device to make local routing decisions in accordance with the particular behavior;
Zafer discloses receiving, by the controller and from a network administrator, user intent associated with configuring settings of one or more edge devices within the SD-WAN to exhibit a particular routing behavior (The hub order configuration are manually change via a user interface by the network administrator through the network controller’s UI [0093], [0209-0210]. SD-WAN controller receives API call to update and synchronize configurations for all network edges, which then dynamically alters the flow of network traffic of the FE’s [0058], [0063], [0093], [0097]. Examiner interprets user intent as an instruction from a user to modify or change a setting, which is an intent to alter the flow of data);
defining, by the controller and based on the user intent, routing control settings associated with configuring the one or more edge devices to exhibit the particular routing behavior (SD-WAN controller receives API call to update and synchronize configurations for all network edges, which then dynamically alters the flow of network traffic of the FE’s based on the administrators or user’s input [0058], [0063], [0093], [0097], [0210]);
wherein the routing control setting configures to make routing decisions in accordance with the particular behavior (SD-WAN controller receives API call to update and synchronize configurations for all network edges, which then dynamically alters the flow of network traffic of the FE’s when an impairment of the network is detected [0058], [0063], [0093], [0097], [0209-0210]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria in view of Zafer in order to receive, by the controller and from a network administrator, user intent associated with configuring settings of one or more edge devices within the SD-WAN to exhibit a particular routing behavior;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a better quality of service by identifying the best path for the application data flow [Zafer: 0218, 0076];
However, Thoria-Zafer does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the controller and from a network administrator, user intent associated with configuring local settings of one or more edge devices
wherein the routing control setting configures the edge device to make local routing decisions in accordance with the particular behavior;
Narayan discloses receiving, by the controller and from a network administrator, user intent associated with configuring local settings of one or more edge devices (the administrator of the network controller intents to send a configuration or an aggregated configuration to the edge network devices, each edge network device of the LAN stores the configuration information in a database [0048-0050]);
wherein the routing control setting configures the edge device to make local routing decisions in accordance with the particular behavior (each network edge device stores the received information and allows each edge network device of the LAN to have a picture of all possible paths that can be used for transmitting network traffic [0048-0050]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria-Zafer in view of Narayan in order to configure local setting of edge devices and make local routing decisions;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve overall system by providing high availability services for the transmission of network traffic [Narayan: 0050].
With respect to claim 2: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Thoria does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller comprises a centrally configured routing controller that communicates with the one or more edge devices via an overlay management protocol;
Zafer discloses wherein the controller comprises a centrally configured routing controller that communicates with the one or more edge devices via an overlay management protocol (Item 105 Fig. 1], overlay network architecture [0024]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria in view of Zafer in order to have a centrally configured routing controller that communicates with the one or more edge devices;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would be able to serve as a central point for managing configuration data that is provided to the edge FEs [Zafer: 0070].
With respect to claim 3: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Thoria discloses wherein the routing control setting comprises one or more of a transport path gateway preference, a path length within a region to be ignored, or other routing control setting of the edge device (routing based on the region of the edge routers and the routing controllers in that region [0017-0018]).
With respect to claim 5: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Thoria discloses wherein the routing control settings are configured to apply to particular edge devices based on a hierarchy including one or more site lists, one or more site tags, one or more sub-region identifiers, or one or more region identifiers (edge router settings are applied based on the identifiers which are used to determine the routing controllers to manage the edge routers in the region [001], [0021-0023]).
With respect to claim 9: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Thoria discloses wherein the connection comprises an existing connection to the edge device or a new connection to the edge device (the routing controllers establish connections, adjust connection and maintain connections with the edge routers [0017-0018]).
With respect to claims 10-12, 14 and 18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-3, 5 and 9, respectively. Therefore claims 10-12, 14 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-3, 5 and 9.
With respect to claim 19, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1, respectively. Therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoria et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0052974 A1) (hereinafter “Thoria”) in view of Zafer et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0333631 A1) (hereinafter "Zafer”) and Narayan et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0127962 A1) (hereinafter "Narayan”), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, and 18-19 above, further in view of Smith et al Pub. No.: (US 2025/0008328 A1) (hereinafter "Smith”).
With respect to claim 4: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Thoria-Zafer-Narayan does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing control setting causes the edge device to change a local setting on the edge device;
Smith discloses wherein the routing control setting causes the edge device to change a local setting on the edge device (configuring the routing paths for data and control signal [0514], [0518], the edge device may activate the network slice [0483-0484]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria-Zafer-Narayan in view of Smith in order to change a local setting on the edge device;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to meet the required quality standard [Smith: 0487].
With respect to claim 6: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Thoria-Zafer-Narayan does not explicitly disclose wherein sending the routing control setting to the edge device causes the edge device to enable a feature associated with the routing control setting;
Smith discloses wherein sending the routing control setting to the edge device causes the edge device to enable a feature associated with the routing control setting (configuring the routing paths for data and control signal [0514], [0518], the edge device may activate the network slice [0483-0484]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria-Zafer-Narayan in view of Smith in order to enable a feature associated with the routing control setting;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide compatibility with existing routers through different VPNs [Smith: 0487].
With respect to claims 13 and 15, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 4 and 6, respectively. Therefore claims 13 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4 and 6.
Claims 7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoria et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0052974 A1) (hereinafter “Thoria”) in view of Zafer et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0333631 A1) (hereinafter "Zafer”) and Narayan et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0127962 A1) (hereinafter "Narayan”), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, and 18-19 above, further in view of Liao et al Pub. No.: (US 2016/0134591 A1) (hereinafter "Liao”).
With respect to claim 7: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Thoria-Zafer-Narayan does not explicitly disclose defining, by the controller, a new address family within a communication protocol, wherein sending the routing control setting to the edge device is via the new address family;
Liao discloses defining, by the controller, a new address family within a communication protocol, wherein sending the routing control setting to the edge device is via the new address family (configuration of a VRG access routing protocol and adding a VRF address family for the PE [0124], [0130-0132]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria-Zafer-Narayan in view of Liao in order to define a new address family;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide compatibility with existing routers through different VPNs [Liao: 0129-0132].
With respect to claim 16, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7, respectively. Therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
With respect to claim 20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7, respectively. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoria et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0052974 A1) (hereinafter “Thoria”) in view of Zafer et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0333631 A1) (hereinafter "Zafer”) and Narayan et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0127962 A1) (hereinafter "Narayan”), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, and 18-19 above, further in view of Dunbar et al Pub. No.: (US 2025/0168099 A1) (hereinafter “Dunbar”).
With respect to claim 8: Thoria-Zafer-Narayan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Thoria does not explicitly disclose determining, by the controller, use of a site tag type within the SD-WAN;
generating, by the controller and in response to determining the use, a routing control update based on the site tag type; and
sending, by the controller and to the one or more edge devices within the SD-WAN, the routing control update;
Zafer discloses sending, by the controller and to the one or more edge devices within the SD-WAN, the routing control update (SD-WAN controller receives API call to update configurations for edge FEs [0063], [0097], [0201]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria in view of Zafer in order to send routing control updates;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide redial actions for security issues [Zafer: 0194].
However, Thoria-Zafer-Narayan does not explicitly determine, by the controller, use of a site tag type within the SD-WAN;
generating, by the controller and in response to determining the use, a routing control update based on the site tag type;
Dunbar discloses determining use of a site tag type within the SD-WAN (site-reference ID specified in the site ID field [0089-0090]);
generating a routing control update based on the site tag type (an update message including a site-reference identifier [0006], [0016], [0067]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thoria-Zafer-Narayan in view of Dunbar in order to generate a routing control update based on site tag;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimized mass switching triggered by site failure or degradation [Dunbar: Abstract].
With respect to claim 17, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim81, respectively. Therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446