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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/752,538 with preliminary amendments last filed on June 24th, 2024.
Claims 1-16 and 35-41 are cancelled.
Claims 17-34 are pending and have been examined, directed to REMOTE CONTROL OF VARIABLES FOR ROUTING IN COMMUNICATION NETWORKS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 18, and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0368625 A1 to Smith et al. (referred to hereafter as “Smith”).
As to claim 17, Smith discloses a method for communicating data in a system comprising a data network and a remote data device communicatively coupled to the data network, the data network comprising a plurality of router nodes (e.g., Smith: Fig. 1), the method comprising:
computing with the data network, for each router node of the plurality of router nodes, a best set of routes subject to a partial ordering (Smith discloses of a similar process with computing for each router node, a best set of routes or paths that’s subject to a partial ordering, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 78, 108, 121 and 124);
assigning with the data network, at each router node of the plurality of router nodes, a local label that is unique to the particular router node for each computed route of the computed best set of routes for the particular router node (Smith discloses of various examples that involve assigning a local label to router nodes for each computed route, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 88 and 120-121);
defining with the data network, at a first router node of the plurality of router nodes, a next hop label for a first computed route of the computed best set of routes for the first router node based on the local label assigned for the first computed route at a second router node of the plurality of router nodes that is the next hop router node from the first router node for the first computed route (Smith discloses that in certain situations label swap forwarding can occur, wherein a selected local label can be used to carry out destination independent forwarding, by using a next hop label instead, e.g., Smith: node 1490-Z example at the end of ¶ 88);
receiving, at the first router node, at least one initial packet of a flow (Following the same interpretations and example(s), a first packet would be sent/received at the first determined router, along the best route, given all the identified constraints, e.g., Smith: ¶ 88 and 120-121 and related Figs. 6A-11 regarding at least a first and second constraints);
determining, with the data network, a plurality of flow constraints of the flow based on the received at least one initial packet, wherein the determining comprises identifying a first flow constraint of the plurality of flow constraints, and wherein the identifying comprises accessing, with the data network, a value of a first Boolean constraint variable from the remote data device using a web uniform resource locator (“URL”)-based interface (Following the same interpretations and example(s), Smith further discloses that a system device (120), with input and output components (e.g., at least keyboard and video display), can be remote, and would allow a user to identify the flow constraints stored within truth tables, with respect to the computed routing path of the given packet, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 81, 85, 88, and 120 and related Figs. 6A-11 regarding the first and second constraints);
selecting the first computed route from the computed best set of routes for the first router node based on at least the identified first flow constraint (Following the same interpretations and example(s) from before, the system can select the determined suitable route, out of a plurality, and based on identified constraints as previously established above, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 80 and 88); and
forwarding, from the first router node to the second router node, a packet of the flow along with the defined next hop label for the selected first computed route for the first router node (Following the same interpretations and example(s) from before, the system can swap and replace the local label (305) with the next hop label (309), e.g., Smith: ¶ 88).
As to claim 18, Smith further discloses the method of claim 17, wherein:
the partial ordering is for a full range of routing constraints of the data network (e.g., Smith: ¶ 78); and
the first flow constraint is not one of the routing constraints (e.g., Smith: Fig. 3, 316 vs 315, and ¶¶ 88, 105, and 161).
As to claim 21, Smith further discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the partial ordering is for a full range of routing constraints of the data network (e.g., Smith: ¶ 78).
As to claim 22, Smith further discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first flow constraint comprises a first Boolean expression that comprises at least the first Boolean constraint variable (Following claim 17, Smith discloses of Boolean expression with at least two variables that represent policy and network relevant constraints, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 58, 72. 101-103 and Figs. 5-6B).
As to claim 23, Smith further discloses the method of claim 22, wherein:
the first Boolean expression further comprises a second Boolean constraint variable (Following claims 17 and 22, the Boolean expression would have at least two variables “a” and “b” which can represent various constraints like bandwidth and delay, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 58, 72. 101-103 and Figs. 5-6B); and
the identifying the first flow constraint further comprises accessing, with the data network, a value of the second Boolean constraint variable (the system can access and represent the value of delay as the second variable “b” for a routing segment, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 101-103 and Figs. 5-6B).
As to claim 24, Smith further discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the accessing the value of the second Boolean constraint variable comprises accessing, with the data network, the value of the second Boolean constraint variable from a data source internal to the data network (Following claims 17, 22 and 23, and similar to a section in claim 17, another device/system like device (120), since example 120 was representative of devices 100-118, can be internal instead of external/remote and can further access the stored entries like the second Boolean variable regarding “delay”, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 81, 85, 101-103 and Figs. 5-6B).
As to claim 25, Smith further discloses the method of claim 23, wherein:
the system further comprises another remote data device communicatively coupled to the data network (Following claims 17, 22, and 23, another device/system like device (120), since example 120 was representative of devices 100-118, can be distributed/distant/remote, like the device in claim 17, and can further communicate and interact with the overall system, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 81 and 85); and
the accessing the value of the second Boolean constraint variable comprises accessing, with the data network, the value of the second Boolean constraint variable from the other remote data device using the web URL-based interface (this other/another remote device, can access the stored entries like the second Boolean variable regarding “delay” via their device’s display interface, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 81, 85, 101-103 and Figs. 5-6B).
As to claim 26, Smith further discloses a method for communicating data in a system comprising a data network and a remote data device communicatively coupled to the data network, the data network comprising a plurality of router nodes (e.g., Smith: Fig. 1), the method comprising:
defining Boolean variables reflecting states relevant to policies for resource utilization of the data network (Smith discloses of various examples that involve defining Boolean expressions involving one or more variables, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 146-149 and 161);
defining Boolean expressions with the defined Boolean variables for providing constraints (e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 146-149);
computing routes and forwarding traffic within the data network based on the defined Boolean expressions (The Boolean expressions with the variables are used by the system to use in routing and/or forwarding, e.g., Smith: ¶ 146);
determining when a state change occurs that results in a change in a value of any defined Boolean variable, wherein the determining comprises accessing, with the data network, a value of a first Boolean constraint variable from the remote data device using a web uniform resource locator (“URL”)-based interface (In one example, operation 1506, the system can determine state changes to the variables, all of which can be accessed or interacted by a user of the system, via their respective corresponding device/system, like device 120, which was representative of devices 100-118 and can be distributed/distant/remote, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 146, 81, and 85); and
in response to the determining, at least one of:
recomputing the routes (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146); or
updating forwarding rules associated with the routes (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146).
As to claim 27, Smith further discloses the method of claim 26, further comprising, in response to the determining:
recomputing the routes (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146); and
updating forwarding rules associated with the routes (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146).
As to claim 28, Smith further discloses the method of claim 26, further comprising, in response to the determining, recomputing the routes (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146).
As to claim 29, Smith further discloses the method of claim 26, further comprising, in response to the determining, updating forwarding rules associated with the routes (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146).
As to claim 30, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 24.
As to claim 31, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 25.
As to claim 32, Smith further discloses a method for communicating data in a system comprising a data network and a remote data device communicatively coupled to the data network, the data network comprising a plurality of router nodes (e.g., Smith: Fig. 1), the method comprising:
identifying Boolean variables relevant to policies for resource utilization of the data network, wherein the identifying comprises accessing, with the data network, a value of a first identified Boolean variable of the identified Boolean variables from the remote data device using a web uniform resource locator (“URL”)-based interface (Similar to what was covered in claims 17 and 26, Smith discloses of various examples where the system can identify and define Boolean expressions involving one or more variables, via their corresponding respective user-end device, which can be distributed/distant/remote, e.g., Smith: ¶¶ 146-149, 161, 81, and 85);
classifying each identified Boolean variable as at least one of:
a routing variable (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146); or
a forwarding variable (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146);
using at least one classified routing variable to carry out a routing computation for the data network (Both routing variables and forwarding variables are disclosed and used within the Boolean expressions, which can further be updated with any detected changes, e.g., Smith: ¶ 146); and
using at least one classified forwarding variable to carry out a path selection computation for the data network (e.g., Smith: ¶ 146).
As to claim 33, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 24.
As to claim 34, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 25.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0368625 A1 to Smith.
As to claim 19, Smith further discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising defining, at the second router node of the plurality of router nodes, a next hop label for the first computed route of the computed best set of routes for the second router node based on the local label assigned for the first computed route (There should’ve been a comma here with all the tangential language) at a third router node (defining…the next hop label…at this third router node) of the plurality of router nodes that is the next hop router node from the second router node for the first computed route (Following claim 17, Smith discloses of a routing path determination process that can occur with every router within a sequence.
While Smith may not explicitly say second to third or third to fourth router within a sequence, the described process within at least one example is already illustrative of the process.
Therefore, similar to what was already established in claim 17, here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that a similar process at the second router now within a sequence can occur, wherein the second router can determine/identify if there is a next local label or switch over to the next hop label, for the third router node in the sequence, e.g., Smith: based on the same example in ¶ 88 with packet 303).
As to claim 20, Smith further discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising:
receiving, at the second router node, a packet of a flow along with a forwarded label (Following claims 17 and 19, Smith further discloses that each router, or this second router within a sequence, can receive a packet and then later determine if there’s an assigned path or not, e.g., Smith: ¶ 88 and Fig. 3);
identifying, at the second router node, an assigned local label for the second router node that is equal to the received forwarded label (The second router can identify/determine the assigned local label for the next router, e.g., Smith: ¶ 88 and Fig. 3, step 304);
identifying, at the second router node, the defined next hop label for the second router node is associated with same computed route as the identified local label for the second router node (The second router can identify/determine that there is a defined next hope label (e.g., 307), e.g., Smith: ¶ 88 and Fig. 3); and
forwarding, from the second router node to a third router node, the received packet along with the identified defined next hop label for the second router node (The second router can determine to forward in accordance with the next hop label, e.g., Smith: ¶ 88 and Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455