DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the interview conducted May 19, 2026 (the Interview) the response received May 21, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Interview and the Response, the previous (1) objection to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q); (2) objection to claims 1–8 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a); (3) rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); (4) rejection of claims 1, 5–7, 9, 12–14, 16, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and (5) rejections of claims 2–4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17–19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are WITHDRAWN.1
Claims 1–23 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–23 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 12, “the same destination” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 9, lines 7–8; and claim 16, line 19 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 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.
Ma and Bosshart
Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 12–14, 16, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma et al. (US 8,036,226 B1; filed Aug. 26, 2009) in view of Bosshart (US 2014/0328344 A1; filed Jan. 30, 2014).
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert “Ma teaches that the intermediate device 12 assigns a network flow to one of the paths 16 based on available bandwidth information. In this way, the intermediate device 12 of Ma is configured to load balance outbound flows of network packets among paths 16.” Response 11 (citing Ma 3:45–61; 4:8–11). Applicants argue “Ma does not teach that the intermediate device 12 randomly assigns the network flows to the paths 16.” Id.
The Examiner in unpersuaded of error. The Examiner relies principally on Ma for teaching many of the recited elements of claim 1. Of particular note, the Examiner finds Ma teaches assigning diversity packets to a plurality of paths. The Examiner further finds Ma’s assigning is not random, turning to Bosshart to show that randomly assigning is known in the art. Thus, the Examiner proposes to include Bosshart’s teaching with Ma, such that the combined system predictably yields randomly assigning diversity packets to a plurality of paths. Accordingly, Applicants’ arguments regarding Ma’s alleged individual shortcomings (see Response 11) are unavailing. Here, the rejection is not based solely on Ma, but rather on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Next, Applicants
there is no suggestion to modify the intermediate device 12 of Ma to randomly assign the network flows to the paths 16. In the above paragraph, Ma teaches “Intermediate device 12 assigns incoming flows to paths 16 when paths 16 have sufficient available bandwidth to satisfy the QoS bandwidth requirements associated with the flows.” If the intermediate device 12 of Ma is modified to randomly assign network flows to paths 16, some of the network flows may be assigned to paths that do not satisfy the QoS bandwidth requirements. This modification is against the teaching of Ma. Therefore, there is no motivation to modify the device of Ma to randomly assign the network flows to the paths 16.
Response 11 (quoting Ma 4:8–10).
The Examiner in unpersuaded of error. It is well established that, where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Ma teaches “[i]ntermediate device 12 assigns incoming flows to paths 16 when paths 16 have sufficient available bandwidth to satisfy the QoS bandwidth requirements associated with the flows.” Ma 4:8–10 (emphasis added). The Examiner emphasizes “when” because Ma teaches assigning incoming flows to paths when the paths have sufficient available bandwidth to satisfy QoS bandwidth requirements. Thus, the combined system of Ma and Bosshart predictably yields randomly assigning diversity packets to paths when the paths have sufficient available bandwidth to satisfy QoS bandwidth requirements, and not when the paths do not have sufficient available bandwidth to satisfy QoS bandwidth requirements. Therefore, contrary to Applicants’ arguments (see Response 11), Ma’s modification does not render itself unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The Rejection
Regarding claim 1, while Ma teaches a diversity router system (fig. 1, item 2) for routing data across multiple paths (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
a diversity router (figs. 1 and 2, item 12; “several paths may connect a first edge router and a geographically-separated second edge router” at 1:50–51; Ma at least suggests items 12 and 14 from fig. 1 are edge routers to align with the description from 1:50–51), comprising:
one or more interfaces (fig. 2, items 20) coupled to one or more networks (fig. 1, item 10) and configured to receive data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) from the one or more networks and transmit data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) to the networks, wherein the one or more interfaces are configured to receive packets (“distribute and redistribute flows of network packets between different paths” at 1:45–47);
at least one processor (“one or more processors of network device 12” at 5:18); and
at least one non-transitory, machine-readable storage medium (“a computer-readable medium comprises instructions” at 2:25–26) storing one or more protocols comprising a diverse paths routing (DPR) protocol (fig. 3, items 40–48) that includes instructions that cause the at least one processor to execute operations to route the packets through the one or more networks, the operations comprising:
inspecting the packets (fig. 3, items 40, 42; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) to determine a set of diversity packets (“initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet” at 6:12–14 at least suggests a difference among the packets with respect to source and destination addresses, port numbers, and application information) among the packets, which include an indication for diversity, wherein the diversity packets of the set are to be transmitted to the same destination (fig. 1, item 14),
determining a plurality of paths (fig. 1, item 16A–N; fig. 3, item 46; “initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26 that has the extracted flow information (46)” at 9:24–26; “A flow queue contains all network packets awaiting transmission to the destination via a particular network path” at 5:60–61) though the one or more networks for the set of diversity packets;
assigning (at fig. 3, item 48; “After initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26, initial load balancer 32 inserts the new network packet into this flow queue (48)” at 9:30–32) the diversity packets to the plurality of paths;
transmitting the diversity packets through the one or more networks via the assigned paths (“initial load balancer 32 inserts network packets in the new flow into the flow queue in queue structure 26 for transmission through one of paths 16 to device 14” at 6:35–38),
Ma does not teach the assigning comprising randomly assigning the diversity packets.
Bosshart teaches randomly assigning packets (“packets from different flows randomly assigned to each path” at ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s assigning to comprise randomly assigning the diversity packets as taught by Bosshart “to achieve higher total bandwidth” and “to distribute the workload among the paths.” Bosshart ¶ 10.
Regarding claim 5, Ma teaches wherein the indication for diversity comprises a tag (NO to fig. 3, item 44; “initial load balancer 32 determines that queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (‘NO’ of 44)” at 9:21–24) indicating that diversity is required.
Regarding claim 6, Ma teaches wherein inspecting the packets comprises inspecting contents (fig. 3, item 40; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) of the packets, and wherein the indication for diversity comprises a predetermined content (“initial load balancer 32 checks whether queue structure 26 contains a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information. . . . On the other hand, if queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32.” at 6:15–22).
Regarding claim 7, Ma teaches wherein inspecting the packets comprises analyzing one or more selected from the group consisting of a source information of the packets and a destination information (fig. 3, item 40; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) of the packets, and wherein the indication for diversity comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a predetermined source information and a predetermined destination information (“On the other hand, if queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32.” at 6:19–22; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer from 6:19–22 a queue structure 26 that does not contain a flow queue with source and destination addresses that matches the extracted source and destination addresses, then initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32; see MPEP § 2144.01).
Regarding claim 9, Ma teaches a method for routing data (“distribute and redistribute flows of network packets between different paths” at 1:45–47)) across multiple paths (fig. 1, item 16) by using a diversity router system (fig. 1, item 12) that includes one or more protocols comprising a diverse paths routing (DPR) protocol (fig. 3, items 40–48), comprising:
receiving packets (fig. 3, item 40) to be transmitted to one or more networks (fig. 1, item 10);
inspecting the packets (fig. 3, items 40, 42; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) to determine a set of diversity packets (“initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet” at 6:12–14 at least suggests a difference among the packets with respect to source and destination addresses, port numbers, and application information) among the packets, which include an indication for diversity, wherein the diversity packets of the set are to be transmitted to the same destination (fig. 1, item 14);
determining a plurality of paths (fig. 1, item 16A–N; fig. 3, item 46; “initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26 that has the extracted flow information (46)” at 9:24–26; “A flow queue contains all network packets awaiting transmission to the destination via a particular network path” at 5:60–61) through the one or more networks for the set of diversity packets;
assigning (at fig. 3, item 48; “After initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26, initial load balancer 32 inserts the new network packet into this flow queue (48)” at 9:30–32) the diversity packets to the plurality of paths; and
transmitting the packets through the networks via the assigned paths (“initial load balancer 32 inserts network packets in the new flow into the flow queue in queue structure 26 for transmission through one of paths 16 to device 14” at 6:35–38),
Ma does not teach the assigning comprising randomly assigning the diversity packets.
Bosshart teaches randomly assigning packets (“packets from different flows randomly assigned to each path” at ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s assigning to comprise randomly assigning the diversity packets as taught by Bosshart “to achieve higher total bandwidth” and “to distribute the workload among the paths.” Bosshart ¶ 10.
Regarding claims 12–14, claims 5–7, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 5–7 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 12–14.
Regarding claim 16, while Ma teaches a network system (fig. 1, item 1) for securely transmitting data to a destination through one or more networks (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
a first host (figs. 1 and 2, item 12) configured to transmit data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) through the one or more networks;
a second host (fig. 1, item 14) configured to receive the data from the first host (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25); and
a plurality of communication paths (fig. 1, items 16) coupled to the first host and second host, wherein the first host comprises a diversity router system that comprises:
a diversity router (figs. 1 and 2, item 12; “several paths may connect a first edge router and a geographically-separated second edge router” at 1:50–51; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer items 12 and 14 from fig. 1 are edge routers to align with the description from 1:50–51; see MPEP § 2144.01), comprising:
at least one interface (fig. 2, items 20) coupled to the one or more networks (fig. 1, item 12) and configured to receive data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) from the one or more networks and transmit data fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) to the one or more networks, wherein the at least one interface is configured to receive packets (“distribute and redistribute flows of network packets between different paths” at 1:45–47);
at least one processor (“one or more processors of network device 12” at 5:18); and
at least one non-transitory machine readable storage medium (“a computer-readable medium comprises instructions” at 2:25–26) storing one or more protocols comprising a diverse paths routing (DPR) protocol (fig. 3, items 40–48) that includes instructions that cause the at least one processor to execute operations to route the packets through the one or more networks, the operations comprising:
inspect the packets (fig. 3, items 40, 42; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) to determine a set of diversity packets (“initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet” at 6:12–14 at least suggests a difference among the packets with respect to source and destination addresses, port numbers, and application information) among the packets, which include an indication for diversity, wherein the diversity packets of the set are to be transmitted to the same destination (fig. 1, item 14);
determining a plurality of paths (fig. 1, item 16A–N; fig. 3, item 46; “initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26 that has the extracted flow information (46)” at 9:24–26; “A flow queue contains all network packets awaiting transmission to the destination via a particular network path” at 5:60–61) through the one or more networks for the set of diversity packets;
assigning (at fig. 3, item 48; “After initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26, initial load balancer 32 inserts the new network packet into this flow queue (48)” at 9:30–32) the diversity packets to the plurality of paths; and
transmitting the diversity packets through the one or more networks via the assigned paths (“initial load balancer 32 inserts network packets in the new flow into the flow queue in queue structure 26 for transmission through one of paths 16 to device 14” at 6:35–38),
Ma does not teach the assigning comprising randomly assigning the diversity packets.
Bosshart teaches randomly assigning packets (“packets from different flows randomly assigned to each path” at ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s assigning to comprise randomly assigning the diversity packets as taught by Bosshart “to achieve higher total bandwidth” and “to distribute the workload among the paths.” Bosshart ¶ 10.
Regarding claims 20–22, claims 5–7, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 5–7 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 20–22.
Ma, Bosshart, and Durinovic-Johri
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma in view of Bosshart, and in further view of Durinovic-Johri et al. (US 2002/0176359 A1; filed May 8, 2001).
Regarding claim 2, Ma does not teach wherein the one or more protocols further comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol, Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) routing protocol, and Kinetic Mesh routing protocol.
Durinovic-Johri teaches an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol (“OSPF routing protocol” at ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s one or more protocols to further comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol, Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) routing protocol, and Kinetic Mesh routing protocol as taught by Durinovic-Johri for “managing data packet flow in routers of networks.” Durinovic-Johri ¶ 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 2 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Ma, Bosshart, and Leon
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma in view of Bosshart, and in further view of Leon (US 2019/0386957 A1; filed June 12, 2019).
Regarding claim 3, while Ma teaches further comprising a controller (“one or more processors of network device 12” at 5:18) configured to receive a data packet (“intermediate network device 12 receives a network packet (40)” at 9:6–7),
Ma does not teach splitting the data packet into a plurality of shards, wherein the data packet includes complete useable information.
Leon teaches splitting a data packet (“the data packet(s) are split” at ¶ 130) into a plurality of shards (“sub-packets” at ¶ 130), wherein the data packet includes complete useable information (“the information is only usable if the sub-packets are combined.” at ¶ 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s controller to split the data packet into a plurality of shards, wherein the data packet includes complete useable information as taught by Leon “for protecting against network-based attacks.” Leon ¶ 31.
Regarding claim 4, Ma does not teach wherein none of the individual shards contains useable information of the data packet.
Leon teaches wherein none of individual shards (“sub-packets” at ¶ 130) contains useable information of a data packet (“the data packet(s)” at ¶ 130; “the information is only usable if the sub-packets are combined.” at ¶ 130 at least suggests the sub-packets are not usable until they are combined back into the original data packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for none of the Ma/Leon combination’s individual shards to contain useable information of the data packet as taught by Leon “for protecting against network-based attacks.” Leon ¶ 31.
Regarding claims 10, 11, 18, and 19, claims 3, 4, 3, and 4, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 3, 4, 3, and 4 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 10, 11, 18, and 19.
Ma, Bosshart, and Claes
Claims 8, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma in view of Bosshart, and in further view of Claes (US 2017/0223045 A1; PCT filed June 1, 2015).
Regarding claim 8, while Ma teaches wherein inspecting the packets comprises inspecting information of the packets (fig. 3, item 40; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14), and wherein the indication for diversity (NO to fig. 3, item 44) comprises predetermined characteristics of the information (“On the other hand, if queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32.” at 6:19–22),
Ma does not teach the information being predetermined route information.
Claes teaches predetermined route information (“Predetermined routing information, which define a communication path of the data packet, may be stored in the data packet to that end.” at ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s information to be predetermined route information as taught by Claes for “improving the data protection [to] promote data security.” Claes ¶ 5.
Regarding claims 15 and 23, claim 8 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 8 are equally applicable to claims 15 and 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20130223275-A1; US-20110228935-A1; and US-11153276-B1.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 § 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 DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes Applicants request withdrawal of an objection made to the Specification. See Response 9. The Examiner finds, however, the previous Office action mailed February 24, 2026 does not include an objection to the Specification.
Prosecution Insights