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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-15 and 18-28 are pending in this application. 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 filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argue that Paramasivan does not disclose or suggest performing Load Balancing in a system where “a first service instance”, “a second service instance”, or “a scheduler” execute the workflow or actions associated with the load balancing, such as, for example “receiving a request data from first peer”; “obtaining a set of allocation options”; “deciding based on considering the set of allocation options, a second service instance”; and “sending, the obtained set of allocation options.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paramasivan discloses multiple service instances arranged in a chain and a controller performing allocation decisions. The amendments specifying that the steps are performed “by the first service instance”, “by the second service instance” and “by the scheduler” only clarifies the actor performing each step and does not introduce new structure or functionality.
Paramasivan discloses a multihop service chain architecture including multiple service instances (nodes), where each hop in the chain performs processing and forwarding operations. With respect to the abstract, [0004] multihop processing deployment….each hop can be a load balancing system, [0269] service chains defining paths across multiple services. In such a system, an upstream node corresponds to the claimed “first service instance” and a downstream node corresponds to the claimed “second service instance”. The multiple service chains are utilized to determine deciding based on considering the set of allocation options, a second service instance.
Applicant’s also argue that Paramasivan does not disclose a “scheduler”. Paramasivan discloses in the abstract a controller that identifies a plurality of service chains, evaluates chains using path weights or efficiency metrics, and selects how traffic is distributed across the service chains. This controller performs the same functional role as the claimed scheduler, namely determining allocation of workflows across service instances based on input data and system conditions. The claims do not require any specific structural implementation of the scheduler beyond performing these functions.
Applicant’s representative also argue that Paramasivan does not disclose “a set of allocation options”. Paramasivan discloses identifying a plurality of service chains, evaluating and selecting among those service chains based on performance metrics. A plurality of service chains institutes a set of candidate allocation options, where each service chain corresponds to a different allocation of service instances for processing a workflow. Therefore, Paramasivan discloses determining and utilizing multiple allocation options for load balancing decisions.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-14, 18-20, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Paramasivan (US 2017/0317932) and in view of Batz (US 2016/0344803).
Re Claim 1, Paramasivan discloses a method performed by a first service instance for handling Load Balancing, LB, which LB is for a workflow transmitted between a first peer and a second peer via a chain of service instances in a communications network, the method comprising:
receiving, by the first service instance, a request data from the first peer ([0199] request communication originating from an application on a client, data flows between clients and servers),
obtaining, by the first service instance, from a scheduler a set of allocation options for LB of the workflow, computed based on the request data ([0081], monitoring agents measures or collects data according to a schedule);
where each allocation option in the set of allocation options identifies a respective associated service instance out of the chain of service instances, to consider for an upcoming LB decision at an appropriate a step of executing a part of the workflow ([0269], service chain load balancing with resource allocation), wherein the chain of service instances comprising at least the first service instance, a second service instance and a third service instance ([0296], chain defines path from first service to the second service to the third service);
deciding, by the first service instance, based on considering the set of allocation options, a next, a second service instance in the chain of service instances, for the LB ([0296], chain defines path from first service to the second service);
sending, by the first service instance, to the decided second service instance, the obtained set of allocation options ([0064], forwards the request to the second server);
enabling, by the first service instance, the second service instance at an appropriate a step of executing the workflow, to consider the set of allocation options, for deciding a next, a third service instance for the LB ([0296], chain defines path from second service to the third service); and to
forward, by the first service instance, the set of allocation options to the decided third service instance, to enable the third service instance at an appropriate a step of executing the workflow, to consider the set of allocation options, for deciding if any remains ([0017], controller forwards network traffic to the instance selected of the service chain), a further next fourth service instance for the LB ([0351], initially includes 3 service chains, can add a fourth service chain to this set).
Paramasivan does not disclose, however Batz discloses which request data indicating a type of the workflow and quality of service ([0044], type of service chains), QoS, requirements for the workflow ([0038]-[0039], optimizing the performance, operation, or quality of service. [0045]-[0046], common requirements can be imposed on the paths for IP flows).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Paramasivan’s service chain with Batz’s service chain which includes requirements for the path of the service chain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by having requirements and to establish quality of service.
Re claim 2, Paramasivan discloses wherein the set of allocation options for LB is transmitted on a same channel as the service instances communicate data when processing the service requests ([0169]-[0170], managing and configuring by identifying a tpe of physical resource for allocation to the virtual machine. The control operations communication via a communication channel established by the hypervisor which is the same communication channel as the service instance as shown in 4A).
Re claim 3, Paramasivan discloses wherein the set of allocation options for LB comprises a stack of textual expressions, where each textual expression comprises, a reference identifying the respective associated service instance out of the chain of service instances, to consider for the LB the decision at the appropriate step of the workflow execution ([0309], the controller includes load balancer that can identify the service chains corresponding to the request).
Re claims 1-9, 13-14, 18-20, 22-24, and 26-27, they are similar to claims 1-3 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 4, 10, 15, 21, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Paramasivan and in view of Batz and in view of Kusano (US 2020/0013107).
Re claims 4, 10, 15, 21, 25, and 28, Paramasivan discloses in [0024] a balancing function and the path weight for each of the subset of the plurality of service chains. Paramasivan and Batz does not disclose, however Kusano discloses wherein any one of;
each allocation option in the set of allocation options further comprises a value defining a strength of recommending the particular service instance; or
each textual expressions in the stack of textual expressions, further comprises a value defining a strength of recommending the particular service instance (Kusano 2020/0013107 [0108], recommendation on a service chain. [0144] recommendation module refers to a predetermined condition relating to a KPI value).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Paramasivan’s and Batz’s service chain with Kusano’s service chain which includes key performance indicator values in the recommendations on a service chain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to create a more efficient system by utilizing KPI on the recommendation evaluations.
Conclusion
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 HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights