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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihula 20020143914 in view of Chakraborty 20210409110.
As to claim 1, Cihula discloses a method for prioritizing network packets in an edge environment [The router 108 … and other network elements may be edge devices] (see abstract; par. 0026), the method comprising: monitoring, by an edge environment engine, the edge environment to obtain environment telemetry data from edge devices in the edge environment [the dynamic network information 153 includes at least one monitoring agent 155 to monitor the performance of the network 102 and its devices (e.g., for the router 108, the switch 106, the hub 110, the servers 132, and links between the devices)] (see par. 0034-0035);
analyzing, by an analyzing agent of the edge environment engine, the environment telemetry data, to generate, by the analyzing agent, environment topology information, wherein the environment topology information comprises: a category of applications [types of traffic] executing on each of the edge devices, and a health of each of the edge devices [In one embodiment, the dynamic network information 153 maintains information, such as topology, error rates, response times, and the like, for the router 108, the switch 106, the hub 110, the servers 132, and links between the devices.] (see par. 0032-0034);
generating, using a prioritized “rank” model and using the environment topology information, a prioritization policy that includes a mapping between an application and a prioritization “rank”, wherein the mappings are further based on the category of the applications [QoS], and the health of the edge devices [links]; [the policy management tool 150 uses the dynamic network information 153 to generate a policy] (see par. 0033, 0036, 0039, 0042, 0045); and
sending, by the edge environment engine, the prioritization policy to each of the edge devices in the edge environment, wherein the edge devices apply the prioritization policy to prioritize the network packets when transmitting the network packets to other devices [The policy management tool 150 maps the policy to affected devices to selectively configure the devices accordingly.] (see par. 0037, 0055-0057). Cihula does not use the word rank; however, recites tagging the packets from high to best-effort, which, it would be obvious that it is equivalent to ranking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Cihula’s tagging the packets from high priority to best-effort is equivalent to ranking; thereby, allowing the priority time-critical and mission-critical data to be ranked with a high priority to satisfy the need of the communication and users.
Cihula fails to disclose wherein the environment topology information comprises locations of the edge devices. In an analogous art, Chakraborty discloses wherein the environment topology information comprises a location of each of the edge devices and wherein the mappings are further based on the location of the edge devices [the location of the sub-edge devices are known, and the content is prioritized, such that the most important or highest priority content is sent where signal strength is expected to be the best at the sub-edge devices] (see par. 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Cihula’s tagging the packets from high priority to best-effort is equivalent to ranking; thereby, allowing the priority time-critical and mission-critical data to be ranked with a high priority to satisfy the need of the communication and users.
As to claim 2, Cihula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the environment telemetry data comprises health information from each of the edge devices and application category information of the edge devices (see par. 0046-0047).
As to claim 6, Cihula discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the prioritization rank provided by the prioritization policy is applied to an Internet Protocol (IP) header of each network packet from the application obtained by an edge device of the edge devices, wherein the applying of the prioritization rank results in the prioritization rank being included in the IP header of each network packet, wherein each edge device prioritizes transmission of each network packet using the prioritization rank [When a network device encounters traffic (comprised of packets) that matches the policy's conditions, the device adds a priority tag to the packet, which is a logical grouping of information that includes a header containing control information] (see par. 0042). Cihula does not use the word rank; however, recites tagging the packets from high to best-effort, which, it would be obvious that it is equivalent to ranking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Cihula’s tagging the packets from high priority to best-effort is equivalent to ranking; thereby, allowing the priority time-critical and mission-critical data to be ranked with a high priority to satisfy the need of the communication and users.
As to claim 7, Cihula discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the edge device of the edge devices operates as a router that transmits each network packet from the application to another device [The router 108 … and other network elements may be edge devices] (see abstract; par. 0026).
As to claim 8, Cihula discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the router comprises the edge environment engine [The router 108 … and other network elements may be edge devices] (see abstract; par. 0026). Not all steps are performed by the router (see par. 0030). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the features of the computer 140 in the router, since the router is already a computer and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine all the steps in the router to minimize cost and faster execution.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 14-16, they are the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium of method claims 1-2 and 6-8. Therefore, claims 9-10 and 14-16 are rejected for the same reason as shown above.
As to claim 17, Cihula discloses a system, comprising: an edge environment [The router 108 … and other network elements may be edge devices] (see abstract; par. 0026), comprising: a plurality of edge devices [120-130]; and an edge environment engine, comprising circuitry, programmed to: monitor the edge environment to obtain environment telemetry data from the plurality of edge devices [the dynamic network information 153 includes at least one monitoring agent 155 to monitor the performance of the network 102 and its devices (e.g., for the router 108, the switch 106, the hub 110, the servers 132, and links between the devices)] (see par. 0034-0035); analyze, by an analyzing agent of the edge environment engine, the environment telemetry data, to generate, by the analyzing agent, environment topology information, wherein the environment topology information comprises: a category of applications executing on each of the edge devices, and a health of each of the edge devices; [In one embodiment, the dynamic network information 153 maintains information, such as topology, error rates, response times, and the like, for the router 108, the switch 106, the hub 110, the servers 132, and links between the devices.] (see par. 0032-0033); generate, using a prioritized rank model, a prioritization policy that includes a mapping between an application and a prioritization rank, wherein the mappings are further based on the location, the category of the applications, and the health of the edge devices [the policy management tool 150 uses the dynamic network information 153 to generate a policy] (see par. 0033, 0036, 0039, 0042, 0045); and send the prioritization policy to each of the plurality of edge devices [The policy management tool 150 maps the policy to affected devices to selectively configure the devices accordingly.] (see par. 0037, 0055-0057); wherein an edge device in the plurality of edge devices is programmed to: obtain a network packet from an application to be transmitted to another device; analyze an Internet Protocol (IP) header of the network packet to identify the application associated with the network packet; apply, based on the prioritization policy, the prioritization rank to the IP header of the network packet; and transmit, according to the prioritization rank, the network packet from the edge device to another device [When a network device encounters traffic (comprised of packets) that matches the policy's conditions, the device adds a priority tag to the packet, which is a logical grouping of information that includes a header containing control information] (see par. 0042). Cihula does not use the word rank; however, recites tagging the packets from high to best-effort, which, it would be obvious that it is equivalent to ranking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Cihula’s tagging the packets from high priority to best-effort is equivalent to ranking; thereby, allowing the priority time-critical and mission-critical data to be ranked with a high priority to satisfy the need of the communication and users. Cihula fails to disclose wherein the environment topology information comprises locations of the edge devices. In an analogous art, Chakraborty discloses wherein the environment topology information comprises a location of each of the edge devices and wherein the mappings are further based on the location of the edge devices [the location of the sub-edge devices are known, and the content is prioritized, such that the most important or highest priority content is sent where signal strength is expected to be the best at the sub-edge devices] (see par. 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Cihula’s tagging the packets from high priority to best-effort is equivalent to ranking; thereby, allowing the priority time-critical and mission-critical data to be ranked with a high priority to satisfy the need of the communication and users.
As to claim 20, Cihula discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the prioritization rank provided by the prioritization policy is applied to an Internet Protocol (IP) header of each network packet from the application obtained by an edge device of the plurality of edge devices, wherein the applying of the prioritization rank results in the prioritization rank being included in the IP header of each network packet, wherein each edge device prioritizes transmission of each network packet using the prioritization rank [When a network device encounters traffic (comprised of packets) that matches the policy's conditions, the device adds a priority tag to the packet, which is a logical grouping of information that includes a header containing control information] (see par. 0042), wherein the edge device of the plurality of edge devices functions as a router that transmits each network packet from the application to another device, and wherein the router comprises the edge environment engine [The router 108 … and other network elements may be edge devices] (see abstract; par. 0026), wherein the router comprises the edge environment engine [The router 108 … and other network elements may be edge devices] (see abstract; par. 0026). Not all steps are performed by the router (see par. 0030). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the features of the computer 140 in the router, since the router is already a computer and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine all the steps in the router to minimize cost and faster execution.
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-13, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cihula in view of Gupta 20250211536 and further in view of Karthikeyan 20180191621.
As to claims 3-5, 11-13 and 18-19, Cihula discloses the method/medium/system of claim 1/9/17, wherein the prioritization or ranking is based on the environment telemetry data and the environment topology information stored in an engine storage of the edge environment engine, based on the environment telemetry data wherein the environment telemetry data comprises health information from each of the edge devices and application category information of the plurality of edge devices (see par. 0046-0047), the environment topology information, and a policy stored in an engine storage of the edge environment engine [In one embodiment, the dynamic network information 153 maintains information, such as topology, error rates, response times, and the like, for the router 108, the switch 106, the hub 110, the servers 132, and links between the devices.] (see par. 0032-0035); wherein the prioritization policy comprises a giving priority or ranking of applications in the edge environment based on classifications specified in the policy, and device health information specified in the environment topology information, comprises an application-level classification for network packets in the edge environment [the policy management tool 150 uses the dynamic network information 153 to generate a policy] (see par. 0033, 0036, 0039, 0042, 0045). Cihula fails to disclose training models. In an analogous art, Gupta discloses a model is trained on the environment telemetry data using multiple linear regression (see par. 0055, 0204), differentiated services (DiffServ) policy (see par. 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings and profiles of Gupta in Cihula to modify the network with more precision to the traffic conditions and improve customer satisfaction. Gupta fails to have support in the priority document for differentiated services (DiffServ). In another analogous art, Karthikeyan discloses differentiated services (DiffServ) (see par. 0001). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add differentiated services in the in Cihula/Gupta modified system to provide to provide various Classes of Service according to the traffic conditions and improve customer satisfaction.
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 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights