DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed December 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel et al. (hereinafter Raindel) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0294715 A1) in view of Hamdi et al. (hereinafter Hamdi) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0319085 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Raindel teaches and discloses a method and a router (switch, figure 3) comprising: a plurality of interfaces (network interface/port, figure 3); and processing circuitry (inherent component of the switch, figure 3) in communication with storage media (inherent component of the switch, figure 3), the processing circuitry configured to:
based at least in part on receiving one or more first packets of a plurality of packets of a session between a source device (source node; [0007]) and a destination device (destination node; [0007]) with a first ingress interface of the plurality of interfaces (first ingress interface of a plurality of interfaces; [0046]), forward the one or more first packets using a first flow for the session, the first flow established by the router from the first ingress interface to an egress interface of the plurality of interfaces (egress interface of a plurality of ingress interfaces; [0046]) ([0005]; “…a network element that includes multiple interfaces for connecting to a communication network includes receiving from the communication network via an ingress interface a flow including a sequence of packets, and routing the packets to a destination of the flow via a first egress interface…”; [0046]; [0047]; teaches establishing a connection for a flow of packets routed from a first ingress interface to a first egress interface between source node and destination node);
based at least in part on receiving one or more second packets of the plurality of packets of the same session with a second ingress interface of the plurality of interfaces (another ingress interface of a plurality of interfaces; [0046]) and not with the first ingress interface ([0046]; [0047]; [0082]; [0083]; teaches receiving another packet of the flow with another ingress interface of the plurality of interfaces that is not the first ingress interface; figures 1 and 3);
deactivate the first flow for the session established from the first ingress interface to the egress interface ([0026]; [0069]; teaches suspending the flow from the ingress interface to the egress interface).
However, Raindel may not explicitly disclose forward the one or more second packets using a second flow for the session, the second flow established by the router from the second ingress interface to the egress interface.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Hamdi teaches and suggests deactivate the first flow for the session established from the first ingress interface to the egress interface ([0023]; “…when a flow has finished, the final packet associated with that flow may include a flow session stop indicator that indicates that that flow has ended and causes the flow-based handler and session manager 310 to deactivate the associated flow session…”; claim 6; “…wherein the flow-based handler and session manager is further configured to: deactivate the first flow session associated with the first packet…”; teaches deactivating the flow session so that subsequent packets of the session of not forwarded); and forward the one or more second packets using a second flow for the session, the second flow established by the router from the second ingress interface to the egress interface ([0021]; “…a second flow session may be created in response to receiving a packet that includes metadata…second flow session may be used for subsequent packets that include metadata that indicates that they are part of the same flow…”; [0028]; teaches forwarding, using a new flow, the packet of the flow session including metadata comprising new flow session identification).
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 incorporate deactivating the flow session so that subsequent packets of the session of not forwarded as taught by Hamdi with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel for the purpose of providing dynamic routing in the information handling system, as suggests by Hamdi.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Raindel discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session, but does not explicitly disclose determining, by the router, the one or more first packets belong to the session based at least in part on a lead packet of the one or more first packets comprising metadata comprising a first session identifier for the session.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Hamdi teaches and suggests determining, by the router, the one or more first packets belong to the session based at least in part on a lead packet of the one or more first packets comprising metadata comprising a first session identifier for the session ([0021]; teaches forwarding the packet of the flow session including metadata comprising flow session identification).
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 incorporate forwarding the packet of the flow session including metadata comprising flow session identification as taught by Hamdi with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of providing dynamic routing in the information handling system, as suggests by Hamdi.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Raindel discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session, but does not explicitly disclose deactivating, by the router, a first flow configuration information record for the session, the first flow configuration information record associated with the first ingress interface; and activating, by the router, a second flow configuration information record for the session, the second flow configuration information record associated with the second ingress interface.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Hamdi teaches and suggests deactivating, by the router, a first flow configuration information record for the session, the first flow configuration information record associated with the first ingress interface ([0023]; teaches deactivating the flow session so that subsequent packets of the session of not forwarded); and activating, by the router, a second flow configuration information record for the session, the second flow configuration information record associated with the second ingress interface ([0021]; teaches forwarding, using a new flow, the packet of the flow session including metadata comprising new flow session identification).
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 incorporate deactivating the flow session so that subsequent packets of the session of not forwarded as taught by Hamdi with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of providing dynamic routing in the information handling system, as suggests by Hamdi.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, further teaches and suggests selecting, by the router, the egress interface from a plurality of egress interfaces of the router ([0005]; [0046]; [0047]; teaches selecting an egress interface).
Regarding claim 10, Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, further teaches and suggests wherein to forward the one or more second packets using a second flow for the session, the processing circuitry is configured to: store context information associated with the first flow; associate the second flow to the stored context information; and use the stored context information to forward the one or more second packets using the second flow ([0051]; [0052]; [0056]; teaches configuring forwarding database and routing rules for forwarding the packet flows).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel et al. (hereinafter Raindel) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0294715 A1) in view of Hamdi et al. (hereinafter Hamdi) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0319085 A1), and further in view of Izenberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0104852 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Raindel discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session and Hamdi teaches modify a lead packet of the one or more first packets to include metadata comprising a first session identifier for the session; forward the modified lead packet ([0021]; “…the creation of a new flow session includes the generation and storage of a new flow session identification…a first flow session may be created in response to receiving a packet that includes metadata that matches any flow match rules in the flow table…and that first flow session may be used to track all subsequent packets that include metadata that indicates that they are part of the same flow…”), but the combination may not explicitly disclose forwarding subsequent packets of the one or more first packets without the metadata comprising the first session identifier for the session.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Izenberg further teaches and suggests forwarding subsequent packets of the one or more first packets without the metadata comprising the first session identifier for the session ([0073]; “…forwarded to the modification engine in the metadata, the same command can be used to consecutive packets transmitted from the same queue…send it once through a metadata descriptor and the hardware will implement the same command for all consecutive packets without any software load…”; teaches forwarding a packet with metadata once and sending subsequent, consecutive packets without the metadata and session descriptor).
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 incorporate forwarding a packet with metadata once and sending subsequent, consecutive packets without the metadata and session descriptor as taught by Izenberg with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of applying packet flow policy for routing packet flows by reducing software load, as suggests by Izenberg.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel et al. (hereinafter Raindel) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0294715 A1) in view of Hamdi et al. (hereinafter Hamdi) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0319085 A1), and further in view of Singh et al. (hereinafter Singh) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2013/0003741 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session, but may not explicitly disclose wherein determining the one or more first packets belong to the session comprises: retrieving, by the router and based on a 7-tuple of the one or more first packets, a flow configuration information record for the session, the flow configuration information record associated with the first ingress interface.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Singh further teaches and suggests wherein determining the one or more first packets belong to the session comprises: retrieving, by the router and based on a 7-tuple of the one or more first packets, a flow configuration information record for the session, the flow configuration information record associated with the first ingress interface ([0014]; [0015]; [0016]; teaches retrieving a packet flow policy based on the a packet flow using a 7-tuple key).
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 incorporate retrieving a packet flow policy based on the a packet flow using a 7-tuple key as taught by Singh with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of applying packet flow policy for routing packet flows, as suggests by Singh.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session, but may not explicitly disclose wherein determining the one or more second packets belong to the session comprises: retrieving, by the router and based on a 7-tuple of the one or more second packets, a flow configuration information record for the session, the flow configuration information record associated with the first ingress interface and not the second ingress interface.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Singh further teaches and suggests wherein determining the one or more second packets belong to the session comprises: retrieving, by the router and based on a 7-tuple of the one or more second packets, a flow configuration information record for the session, the flow configuration information record associated with the first ingress interface and not the second ingress interface ([0014]; [0015]; [0016]; teaches retrieving a packet flow policy based on the a packet flow using a 7-tuple key).
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 incorporate retrieving a packet flow policy based on the a packet flow using a 7-tuple key as taught by Singh with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of applying packet flow policy for routing packet flows, as suggests by Singh.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raindel et al. (hereinafter Raindel) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0294715 A1) in view of Hamdi et al. (hereinafter Hamdi) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0319085 A1), and further in view of Salgueiro et al. (hereinafter Salgueiro) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0327111 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the first flow comprises an action chain comprising a chain descriptor associated with a first set of functional blocks, and wherein deactivating the first flow comprises modifying the chain descriptor to indicate the first flow is one of invalid or deactivated.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Salgueiro teaches and suggests wherein the first flow comprises an action chain comprising a chain descriptor associated with a first set of functional blocks, and wherein deactivating the first flow comprises modifying the chain descriptor to indicate the first flow is one of invalid or deactivated ([0015]; [0037]; teaches a service function chain of a first flow and linking a first and second set of service functions).
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 incorporate a service function chain of a first flow and linking a first and second set of service functions as taught by Salgueiro with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of providing dynamic routing and applying service function chains, as suggests by Salgueiro.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, discloses establishing a flow for routing packets of a session, but may not explicitly disclose establishing a second set of functional blocks; and associating the second set of functional blocks to the chain descriptor.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Salgueiro teaches and suggests establishing a second set of functional blocks; and associating the second set of functional blocks to the chain descriptor ([0015]; [0037]; teaches a service function chain of a first flow and linking a first and second set of service functions).
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 incorporate a service function chain of a first flow and linking a first and second set of service functions as taught by Salgueiro with the method and router for routing packet flows as disclosed by Raindel, as modified by Hamdi, for the purpose of providing dynamic routing and applying service function chains, as suggests by Salgueiro.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action and Applicant's arguments, filed December 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Raindel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0294715 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
January 17, 2026