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 1-20are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0039824 to Black et al.
a. As per claim 1, Black 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 [0006, 0063], An application can request a route to an Internet service according to the policy to be assigned a route) ; receiving, at the controller device, a geographic location of at least one network device of the network (See paragraph [0039-0040], the end user device 195 reports telemetry on residency as observed from that perspective); receiving, at the controller device, a sovereignty policy related to the data traffic (See paragraph [0040], sovereignty classifier 424 determines compliance with policies 410 with regard to residency and may gather its own telemetry from the cloud network 100. Those policies 410 can specify in which country or countries and/or regions data resides and is routed through); computing, by the controller device, the data path for the data traffic based at least in part on the geographic location of the at least one network device and the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0040]); and sending, by the controller device and to the head end device, the data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0043]).
b. As per claim 9, Black et al teaches a controller device comprising: one or more processors (See paragraph [0070-0071]); 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 [0006, 0063], An application can request a route to an Internet service according to the policy to be assigned a route); receive a geographic location of at least one network device of the network (See paragraph [0039-0040], the end user device 195 reports telemetry on residency as observed from that perspective); receive a sovereignty policy related to the data traffic; compute the data path for the data traffic based at least in part on the geographic location of the at least one network device and the sovereignty policy (see paragraph [0040]); and send, to the head end device, the data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0043]).
c. As per claims 2 and 10, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Black et al teaches wherein the computing the data path further comprises: determining that the geographic location of the at least one network device complies with the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0040]); and including the at least one network device in the data path (See paragraph [0040-0043]).
d. As per claims 3 and 11, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Black et al teaches wherein the geographic location of the at least one network device is located within a Geo-Boundary included in the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0038], data residency requirements of each tenant).
e. As per claims 4 and 12, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Black et al teaches wherein the computing the data path further comprises: determining that the geographic location of the at least one network device does not comply with the sovereignty policy; and excluding the at least one network device from the data path (See paragraph [0040]).
f. As per claims 5 and 13, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Black et al teaches wherein the at least one network device is a mobile network device, and 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 network 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 [0067 and figure 9, Any updates to the configuration of the cloud network 100 is performed in block 932 to correct any residency issue for routes, services and storage to support the policies of the tenants. After any updates, processing loops back to block 902 where the process begins again).
g. As per claims 6 and 14, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Black et al teaches wherein the sovereignty policy comprises a Data Sovereignty Protection Intent (DSPI) (See paragraph [0057]).
4. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2018/0343188 to Betge-Brezetz et al.
a. As per claim 17, Betge-Brezetz 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 [0025], the source domain sending a trusted path computation request to each of the trusted neighboring domains); receiving, at the controller device, a geographic location of a network device of the network (See paragraph [0061 and 0179]); receiving, at the controller device, a sovereignty policy related to the data traffic (See paragraph [0019, 0025], this trusted path computation request comprising a policy defining what is a trusted domain and a trusted node);
using the geographic location of a network device, determining, by the controller device, a sovereignty authenticity index (SAI) value for the network device (See paragraph [0061, 0179; 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 0050-0057]); and sending, by the controller device and to the head end device, the data path for the data traffic (See paragraph [0172-0173]).
b. As per claim 18, Betge-Brezetz et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Betge-Brezetz et al teaches wherein the SAI value indicates whether the geographic location of the network device complies with the sovereignty policy (See paragraph [0056-0057, 0061, 0178], Vulnerability level maximum: The policy can be constituted by a more aggregated indicator that defines the maximum level of vulnerability of a domain, or of a node, in order to be part of the trusted path. [0057] Reputation level minimum: The policy can also be constituted by another aggregated indicator that defines the minimum level of reputation of a domain, or of a node, that must be satisfied to be part of a trusted path).
c. As per claim 19, Betge-Brezetz et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Betge-Brezetz et al teaches wherein computing the data path further comprises: in a first instance where the SAI value indicates that the geographic location of the network device complies with the sovereignty policy, including the network device in the data path (See paragraph [0061, 0178-0179]); and in a second instance where the SAI value indicates that the geographic location of the network device does not comply with the sovereignty policy, excluding the network device from the data path (See paragraph [0061]).
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. 2023/0039824 to Black et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0053788 to Peng et al.
a. AS per claims 7 and 15, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Black 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. 2023/0039824 to Black et al in view of WO 2020/036983 to Chen.
a. As per claims 8 and 16, Black et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Black 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 Chen in the claimed invention of Black et al in order to optimize the route and path computation of the data traffic.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0172222 to Chin et al teaches Determining a Combined Compliance Assessment Metric.
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0311768 to Howewisch et al teaches Method and System for Defining and Enforcing IP Traffic Policy for Connected Devices.
U.S. Publication No. 2023/0093882 to Waters et al teaches Asynchronous Supervision for Sovereign Could Platforms.
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