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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 8/13/24 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0247678 to Atwal.
a. As per claim 1, Atwal et al et al teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a controller device and from a head end device, a path computation request for a data path for data traffic across a network to a destination device (See paragraph [0014, 0016-0017]) ; receiving, at the controller device, a current geographic location of at least one mobile routing device of the network (See paragraph [0093, 0159, 0313 and 0315]); receiving, at the controller device, a sovereignty policy related to the data traffic (See paragraph [0393], Routing data plane connectivity across the world may be controlled with respect to considering security standards around the world such that routes may be setup to avoid pathways through some regions. This may be based on countries in region and/or whether regions have security standards below a preferred security standard (e.g., below software security standards established by the platform that may relate to a sovereign military security standard) such that this standard threshold may be used in determining and setting up route for the data plane. The LEO system may manage and direct the control plane in routing the data plane that meets rules, protocols, and/or standards of the LEO system. These rules, protocols, and/or standards may be configured by an administrator of the LEO system); computing, by the controller device, the data path for the data traffic based at least in part on the current geographic location of the at least one mobile routing device and the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0093 and 0392-0393]); and sending, by the controller device and to the head end device, the data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0377, 0392-0393], the LEO system having control of the control plane at least provides management of which terrestrial carriers and/or undersea carriers may be authorized for a pathway by the data plane. These carriers may be selected based on the carriers being from a sovereignty having known security standards meeting LEO system's administrator security standards (e.g., as set by sovereign military security standards for communications/transmissions)).
b. As per claim 9, Atwal et al teaches a controller device comprising: one or more processors (See paragraph [0576]); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a head end device, a path computation request for a data path for data traffic across a network to a destination device (See paragraph [0014, 0016-017]); receive a current geographic location of at least one mobile routing device of the network (See paragraph [0093, 0159, 0313 and 0315]); receive a sovereignty policy related to the data traffic (See paragraph [0393], Routing data plane connectivity across the world may be controlled with respect to considering security standards around the world such that routes may be setup to avoid pathways through some regions. This may be based on countries in region and/or whether regions have security standards below a preferred security standard (e.g., below software security standards established by the platform that may relate to a sovereign military security standard) such that this standard threshold may be used in determining and setting up route for the data plane. The LEO system may manage and direct the control plane in routing the data plane that meets rules, protocols, and/or standards of the LEO system. These rules, protocols, and/or standards may be configured by an administrator of the LEO system); compute the data path for the data traffic based at least in part on the geographic location of the at least one mobile routing device and the sovereignty policy (see paragraph [0093 and 0392-0393]); and send, to the head end device, the data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0377, 0392-0393], the LEO system having control of the control plane at least provides management of which terrestrial carriers and/or undersea carriers may be authorized for a pathway by the data plane. These carriers may be selected based on the carriers being from a sovereignty having known security standards meeting LEO system's administrator security standards (e.g., as set by sovereign military security standards for communications/transmissions).
c. As per claims 2 and 10, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the computing the data path further comprises: determining that the current geographic location of the at least one mobile routing device complies with the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0393], Routing data plane connectivity across the world may be controlled with respect to considering security standards around the world such that routes may be setup to avoid pathways through some regions. This may be based on countries in region and/or whether regions have security standards below a preferred security standard (e.g., below software security standards established by the platform that may relate to a sovereign military security standard) such that this standard threshold may be used in determining and setting up route for the data plane. The LEO system may manage and direct the control plane in routing the data plane that meets rules, protocols, and/or standards of the LEO system. These rules, protocols, and/or standards may be configured by an administrator of the LEO system); and including the at least one mobile routing device in the data path (See paragraph [0349-0350]).
d. As per claims 3 and 11, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the current geographic location of the at least one mobile routing device is located within a Geo-Boundary included in the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0015 and 0393).
e. As per claims 4 and 12, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the computing the data path further comprises: determining that the current geographic location of the at least one mobile routing device does not comply with the sovereignty policy; and excluding the at least one mobile routing device from the data path (See paragraph [0015], The pathway may be determined based on at least one of a white list of approved terrestrial network VIAs and a blacklist of not approved (e.g., unauthorized) terrestrial network VIAs]).
f. As per claims 5 and 13, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the computing the data path further comprises: determining an updated geographic location of the mobile network device; determining an updated data path for the data traffic based at least in part on the updated geographic location of the mobile routing device and the sovereignty policy; and sending, by the controller device and to the head end device, the updated data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0062, 0377-0378])
g. As per claims 6 and 14, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the sovereignty policy comprises a Data Sovereignty Protection Intent (DSPI) (See paragraph [0303, 0344]).
h. As per claim 17, Atwal et al teaches a method comprising: receiving, at a controller device and from a head end device, a path computation request for a data path for data traffic across a network to a destination device ((See paragraph [0014, 0016-0017], ); receiving, at the controller device, a current geographic location of a mobile routing device of the network (See paragraph [0093, 0159, 0313 and 0315]); receiving, at the controller device, a sovereignty policy related to the data traffic (See paragraph [0393], Routing data plane connectivity across the world may be controlled with respect to considering security standards around the world such that routes may be setup to avoid pathways through some regions. This may be based on countries in region and/or whether regions have security standards below a preferred security standard (e.g., below software security standards established by the platform that may relate to a sovereign military security standard) such that this standard threshold may be used in determining and setting up route for the data plane. The LEO system may manage and direct the control plane in routing the data plane that meets rules, protocols, and/or standards of the LEO system. These rules, protocols, and/or standards may be configured by an administrator of the LEO system); using the current geographic location of the mobile routing(see paragraph [0093 and 0392-0393]); computing, by the controller device, the data path for the data traffic based at least in part on the SAI and the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0015 and 0236-0237 and 0398]); and sending, by the controller device and to the head end device, the data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0377, 0392-0393], the LEO system having control of the control plane at least provides management of which terrestrial carriers and/or undersea carriers may be authorized for a pathway by the data plane. These carriers may be selected based on the carriers being from a sovereignty having known security standards meeting LEO system's administrator security standards (e.g., as set by sovereign military security standards for communications/transmissions).
i. As per claim 18, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the SAI value indicates whether the current geographic location of the mobile routing device complies with the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0398]).
j. As per claim 19, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein computing the data path further comprises: in a first instance where the SAI value indicates that the current geographic location of the mobile routing device complies with the sovereignty policy, including the mobile routing device in the data path (See paragraph [0062, 0378-0379]); and in a second instance where the SAI value indicates that the current geographic location of the mobile routing device does not comply with the sovereignty policy, excluding the mobile routing device from the data path (See paragraph [0378-0378]).
k. As per claim 20, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Atwal et al teaches wherein the network device comprises a mobile router and the method further comprises: determining an updated geographic location of the mobile routing device router; checking the updated geographic location for compliance with the sovereignty policy; and re-computing the data path in an instance where the updated geographic location is not in compliance with the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0393, 0396], Routing data plane connectivity across the world may be controlled with respect to considering security standards around the world such that routes may be setup to avoid pathways through some regions. This may be based on countries in region and/or whether regions have security standards below a preferred security standard (e.g., below software security standards established by the platform that may relate to a sovereign military security standard) such that this standard threshold may be used in determining and setting up route for the data plane. The LEO system may manage and direct the control plane in routing the data plane that meets rules, protocols, and/or standards of the LEO system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0247678 to Atwal et al view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0053788 to Peng et al.
a. As per claims 7 and 15, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Atwal et al fails to teach wherein the geographic location of at least one network device is received in a Link state Type/Length/Value (TLV) format.
Peng teaches wherein the geographic location of at least one network device is received in a Link state Type/Length/Value (TLV) format (See paragraph [0054], the TLV includes an options type field, an options data length field, and an options data field. A value of the option type field is used to indicate that the TLV is a TLV that carries the geographical location information of the first device).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Peng in the claimed invention of Black et al in order to indicate the geographic location of the device.
7. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0247678 to Atwal et al in view of WO 2020/036983 to Chen.
a. As per claims 8 and 16, Atwal et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Atwal et al fails to teach wherein the controller device is a segment routing-path computation element (SR-PCE) controller and the sovereignty policy is received in a Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Sub-Type/Length/Value (Sub-TLV) message.
Chen teaches wherein the controller device is a segment routing-path computation element (SR-PCE) controller and the sovereignty policy is received in a Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Sub-Type/Length/Value (Sub-TLV) message (See paragraph [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Atwal in the claimed invention of Atwal et al to optimize the route and path computation of the data traffic.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights