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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2: the claim recites a term “sending the packet as soon as possible”.
The term “as soon as possible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as soon as possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposed of examination, examiner interprets this limitation as “sending the packet before the current Deadline scheduling delay is exhausted”.
Furthermore, the claim recites “sending the packet as close as possible”. The term “as close as possible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as close as possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposed of examination, examiner interprets this limitation as “sending the packet when the current Deadline scheduling delay being exhausted”.
Regarding claim 3: The dependent claim 3 is rejected as they depend on the claim 2.
Regarding claim 8: the claim recites term “between receiving the node parameter configuration..”, and recite the term “sending node parameter information of the node on the local link” , and “comprising information of the node schedule delay set and the node scheduling policy on the local link”. These terms have never been introduced in claim 8, claim 6 or claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner interprets these terms as “between receiving a node parameter configuration..”, and recite the term “sending node parameter information of the node on a local link” , and “comprising information of a node schedule delay set and a node scheduling policy on the local link”
Regarding claims 9-11: The dependent claims 9-11 are rejected as they depend on the claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 22: Claim 22 recites “A Computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program executed by a processor”. the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the specification points to no hardware structure about these elements and there are no corresponding structure. Paragraph [0202] recites the communication medium generally includes computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data in a modulated data signal, such as a carrier wave or other transmission mechanism, and may include any information delivery medium. One with an ordinary skilled in the art would interpret this as a signal per se with no support evidence in the specification.
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 (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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Eckert et al. (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) hereinafter Eckert, in view of ZU et al. (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) hereinafter ZU.
Regarding claim 1, Eckert teaches a route determination method for determining a route, comprising:
determining at least one candidate path in a target network ([0106-0111] Fig. 11, network with multiple nodes, senders, destinations, delays, queues times in each node, different routes between nodes/senders/destinations);
determining a deterministic delay of each candidate path according to a current scheduling parameter ([0080, 0082, 0091, 0100-0102] policy” parameter or metadata field into a packet's LBF packet header. The process can use per-destination egress queuing policy parameters (“LBF_dest_parameters”) that can be attached to a destination forwarding database (forwarding information base, or FIB). A published or external API can be used to populate the LBF_dest_parameters. The embodiments can introduce a function (“LBF_queuing_policy”) to map from LBF_dest_parameters to enqueuing LBF queue parameters)([0119-0130] LBF parameters)([0017-0022] queuing rank)([0098, 0134-0135, 0139] ranking packets within queues, dequeuing packets with specific ranks),
an intra-node forwarding delay ([0059-0061] Fig.2, local latency at each node for the packet to pass through the node, path has four nodes, with 8 ms total delay, delay in each link in the path is 2.5 ms, local latency in each node is (8−2.5) ms/4=1.375 ms), and a link propagation delay ([0059-0061][0074-0075] Fig. 2, Fig. 6, link propagation delay is 1 ms);
wherein the current scheduling parameter comprises a current Deadline scheduling delay and a current scheduling policy ([0080, 0082, 0091, 0100-0102] policy” parameter or metadata field into a packet's LBF packet header. The process can use per-destination egress queuing policy parameters (“LBF_dest_parameters”) that can be attached to a destination forwarding database (forwarding information base, or FIB). A published or external API can be used to populate the LBF_dest_parameters. The embodiments can introduce a function (“LBF_queuing_policy”) to map from LBF_dest_parameters to enqueuing LBF queue parameters)([0119-0130] LBF parameters)([0017-0022] queuing rank)([0098, 0134-0135, 0139] ranking packets within queues, dequeuing packets with specific ranks),
the intra-node forwarding delay is a delay from a packet entering to a node to the packet being forwarded to an egress port ([0059-0061] Fig.2, local latency at each node for the packet to pass through the node, path has four nodes, with 8 ms total delay, delay in each link in the path is 2.5 ms, local latency in each node is (8−2.5) ms/4=1.375 ms),
the deterministic delay of each candidate path comprises node delays of all intermediate nodes in the candidate path and link propagation delays of all links in the candidate path ([0059-0061][0074-0075] Fig. 2, Fig. 6, the path has 3 intermediate nodes between the sender and receiver, latency in each link between nodes is 1 ms, plus queue latency within the node),
the node delay of each intermediate node is obtained according to the intra-node forwarding delay of the intermediate node ([0059-0061][0074-0075] Fig. 2, Fig. 6, the path has 3 intermediate nodes between the sender and receiver, latency in each link between nodes is 1 ms, plus queue latency within the node), the current Deadline scheduling delay and the current scheduling policy ([0080, 0082, 0091, 0100-0102] policy” parameter or metadata field into a packet's LBF packet header. The process can use per-destination egress queuing policy parameters (“LBF_dest_parameters”) that can be attached to a destination forwarding database (forwarding information base, or FIB). A published or external API can be used to populate the LBF_dest_parameters. The embodiments can introduce a function (“LBF_queuing_policy”) to map from LBF_dest_parameters to enqueuing LBF queue parameters)([0119-0130] LBF parameters)([0017-0022] queuing rank)([0098, 0134-0135, 0139] ranking packets within queues, dequeuing packets with specific ranks); and
Although Eckert teaches determining delay for a path, but does not teach select a path based on measured delay, however Zu teaches,
selecting a target path from the at least one candidate path according to the deterministic delay, and determining the route ([Page 3] generating a traffic scheduling policy includes: acquiring a candidate path set of a target flow component; wherein, the starting node of the path in the candidate path set is a source node, and the ending node is a destination node; selecting one or more paths with node change hop counts smaller than a hop count threshold from the candidate path set as intermediate candidate paths; and calculating the time delay of each intermediate candidate path, and selecting the intermediate candidate path with the minimum time delay as a scheduling path of a target traffic component in the traffic scheduling strategy).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Eckert in view of ZU in order to select a path among multiple paths based on measured delay in each path because the scheduling policy generated in the traffic data processing method provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure may also select a scheduling path with a small hop count and a small time delay for a traffic component to be scheduled, ensuring the access quality in the network and improving the customer perception. (ZU [page 4]).
Regarding claim 4, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 1,
Eckert teaches wherein, the current Deadline scheduling delay is deterministic or non-deterministic ([0095] At tnow=lmin, the packet is passed on to a FIFO queue from which packets are dequeued as soon as the outgoing interface to the next-hop can send another packet. Other embodiments can be used, but this is the simplest queuing behavior in router/switches. When at tsend the packet could be sent to the outgoing interface, and when tsend>tqmax, the packet is discarded or, alternately, the packet can be marked with a notification that it has already exceeded its maximum latency and then sent.);
in response to that the current Deadline scheduling delay is deterministic, the deterministic delay of the candidate path is calculated according to a value of the current Deadline scheduling delay ([0095] At tnow=lmin, the packet is passed on to a FIFO queue from which packets are dequeued as soon as the outgoing interface to the next-hop can send another packet. Other embodiments can be used, but this is the simplest queuing behavior in router/switches. When at tsend the packet could be sent to the outgoing interface, and when tsend>tqmax, the packet is discarded or, alternately, the packet can be marked with a notification that it has already exceeded its maximum latency and then sent.);
in response to that the current Deadline scheduling delay is non-deterministic, the current Deadline scheduling delay in the deterministic delay of the candidate path is 0 ([0095, 0098] At tnow=lmin, the packet is passed on to a FIFO queue from which packets are dequeued as soon as the outgoing interface to the next-hop can send another packet. Other embodiments can be used, but this is the simplest queuing behavior in router/switches. When at tsend the packet could be sent to the outgoing interface, and when tsend>tqmax, the packet is discarded or, alternately, the packet can be marked with a notification that it has already exceeded its maximum latency and then sent.)([0134-135]).
Regarding claim 5, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 4,
Eckert teaches wherein in response to that the current Deadline scheduling delay is non-deterministic, the method further comprises:, calculating a deterministic delay of the target path; the deterministic delay of the target path is an expression comprising a variable representing the current Deadline scheduling delay, the value of the variable representing the current Deadline scheduling delay being determined according to a data packet or a local policy entry ([0080, 0082, 0091, 0100-0102] policy” parameter or metadata field into a packet's LBF packet header. The process can use per-destination egress queuing policy parameters (“LBF_dest_parameters”) that can be attached to a destination forwarding database (forwarding information base, or FIB). A published or external API can be used to populate the LBF_dest_parameters. The embodiments can introduce a function (“LBF_queuing_policy”) to map from LBF_dest_parameters to enqueuing LBF queue parameters)([0119-0130] LBF parameters)([0017-0022] queuing rank)([0098, 0134-0135, 0139] ranking packets within queues, dequeuing packets with specific ranks).
Although Eckert teaches determining delay for a path, but does not teach select a path based on measured delay, however Zu teaches,
after selecting the target path from the at least one candidate path according to the deterministic delay ([Page 3] generating a traffic scheduling policy includes: acquiring a candidate path set of a target flow component; wherein, the starting node of the path in the candidate path set is a source node, and the ending node is a destination node; selecting one or more paths with node change hop counts smaller than a hop count threshold from the candidate path set as intermediate candidate paths; and calculating the time delay of each intermediate candidate path, and selecting the intermediate candidate path with the minimum time delay as a scheduling path of a target traffic component in the traffic scheduling strategy).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Eckert in view of ZU in order to select a path among multiple paths based on measured delay in each path because the scheduling policy generated in the traffic data processing method provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure may also select a scheduling path with a small hop count and a small time delay for a traffic component to be scheduled, ensuring the access quality in the network and improving the customer perception (ZU [page 4]).
Regarding claim 6, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 1,
Eckert teaches before determining the at least one candidate path in the target network ([0061-0064] In 305, the node assesses the delay and can also update the delay before passing the packet on to the next node), determining the current scheduling parameter ([0080, 0082, 0091, 0100-0102] policy” parameter or metadata field into a packet's LBF packet header. The process can use per-destination egress queuing policy parameters (“LBF_dest_parameters”) that can be attached to a destination forwarding database (forwarding information base, or FIB). A published or external API can be used to populate the LBF_dest_parameters. The embodiments can introduce a function (“LBF_queuing_policy”) to map from LBF_dest_parameters to enqueuing LBF queue parameters)([0119-0130] LBF parameters)([0017-0022] queuing rank)([0098, 0134-0135, 0139] ranking packets within queues, dequeuing packets with specific ranks).
Regarding claim 7, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 6,
Eckert teaches before determining the current scheduling parameter, receiving a node parameter configuration instruction, and setting a node parameter of a node on a local link according to the node parameter configuration instruction; the node parameter of each node on each link comprising a node scheduling enabling switch, a node scheduling delay set, a node scheduling policy and the intra-node forwarding delay; the node scheduling enabling switch indicating whether the node enables Deadline scheduling, the node scheduling delay set comprising at least one Deadline scheduling delay supported by the node on the local link, the node scheduling policy indicating a scheduling policy supported by the Deadline scheduling delay ([0058-0060] control/management plane 212 that is communicatively coupled to each of the routers or nodes 210 of the network, as represented in dashed lines. The control/management plane 212 can be used to perform a variety of control path and/or control plane functions. The control/management plane of a network is the part of the node architecture that is responsible for collecting and propagating the information that will be used later to forward incoming packets. Routing protocols and label distribution protocols are parts of the control plane)([0065, 0076-0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 6,
Eckert teaches between receiving the node parameter configuration instruction and determining the current scheduling parameter, performing at least one of followings:
sending node parameter information of the node on the local link ([0059] Fig. 2, management of latencies of packets as transmitted from a sending network device, or node, 210 a over the intermediate nodes 210 b-210 d to a receiving network device, or node, 210 e); or
receiving node parameter information sent by other nodes; the node parameter information comprising information of the node scheduling delay set and the node scheduling policy on the local link.
Regarding claim 9, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 8,
Eckert teaches wherein, the node parameter information is a type-length-value (TLV) included in an Intermediate System to Intermediate System (ISIS) Protocol or an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Protocol of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) message ([0065, 0076-0077, 0080-0087, 0132-0133] IGP, OSPF).
Regarding claim 16, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 6,
wherein a current network is a physical network or a virtual network ([abstract][0003-0010] network with routers, nodes);
determining the current scheduling parameter comprises: receiving a scheduling parameter configuration instruction, and determining the current scheduling parameter according to the scheduling parameter configuration instruction ([0059] Fig. 2, management of latencies of packets as transmitted from a sending network device, or node, 210 a over the intermediate nodes 210 b-210 d to a receiving network device, or node, 210 e) ([0058-0060] control/management plane 212 that is communicatively coupled to each of the routers or nodes 210 of the network, as represented in dashed lines. The control/management plane 212 can be used to perform a variety of control path and/or control plane functions. The control/management plane of a network is the part of the node architecture that is responsible for collecting and propagating the information that will be used later to forward incoming packets. Routing protocols and label distribution protocols are parts of the control plane)([0065, 0076-0079]) ([0080, 0082, 0091, 0100-0102] policy” parameter or metadata field into a packet's LBF packet header. The process can use per-destination egress queuing policy parameters (“LBF_dest_parameters”) that can be attached to a destination forwarding database (forwarding information base, or FIB). A published or external API can be used to populate the LBF_dest_parameters. The embodiments can introduce a function (“LBF_queuing_policy”) to map from LBF_dest_parameters to enqueuing LBF queue parameters)([0119-0130] LBF parameters)([0017-0022] queuing rank)([0098, 0134-0135, 0139] ranking packets within queues, dequeuing packets with specific ranks).
Regarding claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Eckert et al. (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) hereinafter Eckert, and ZU et al. (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) hereinafter ZU, in view of DONG et al. (“DONG”, US 20190132234 A1) hereinafter DONG.
Regarding claim 10, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 9,
Eckert and ZU do not explicitly teach, but DONG teaches
wherein the TLV format of the node parameter information comprises ([0069][0072] A new OSPF node deterministic delay sub-TLV is defined in a node attribute TLV to carry a delay range that can be ensured by the forwarding node.):
a type field configured to indicate that the TLV is the node parameter information ([0069][0072] A new OSPF node deterministic delay sub-TLV is defined in a node attribute TLV to carry a delay range that can be ensured by the forwarding node.);
a length field configured to indicate a length of content of the TLV ([0068-0072] carry the delay range); and
a value of each Deadline scheduling delay in the node scheduling delay set and an indication of the scheduling policy supported by the Deadline scheduling delay ([0068-0072] carry the delay range).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Eckert and ZU in view of DONG in order to have TLV field indicating the delay information in the node because it would help the forwarding nodes in the path to share delay information which would improve decide whether certain service delivered by the nodes in the path would meet a latency requirement of specific services (DONG [0070-0073]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Eckert et al. (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) hereinafter Eckert, and ZU et al. (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) hereinafter ZU, in view of Barton et al. (“Barton”, US 20190356600 A1) hereinafter Barton.
Regarding claim 17, Eckert and ZU teach the method of claim 16,
Eckert and ZU do not explicitly teach, but Barton teaches
wherein determining the at least one candidate path in the target network comprises: determining at least one Traffic Engineering (TE) path as the candidate path in the target network by taking the current scheduling parameter as one of constraint conditions for calculating the route ([0020-0021] deterministic path traffic engineering, latency is minimum and less than the required amount, latency is monitored and calculated between hop to hop and end to end).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Eckert and ZU in view of Barton in order to have traffic engineering path selection and exchange the latency information between nodes and select the path based on latency information because it would provide a way to restore communication as quickly as possible when sharing the latency information, and will guarantee and ensure reliable communications between different segments on the path (Barton [0021-0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15, and 18-19 are 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.
Claims 2-3, and 11 are 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 and overcome the 112(b) rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is the reason for allowable subject matter in claim 2.
The prior arts (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) and (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) fail to fairly teach or suggest to the current scheduling policy comprises any one of an in-time policy or an on-time policy; the in-time policy indicates sending the packet as soon as possible before the current Deadline scheduling delay is exhausted, and the on-time policy indicates sending the packet as close as possible to the current Deadline scheduling delay being exhausted; in response to that the current scheduling policy is the in-time policy, the node delay of each intermediate node is greater than or equal to the intra-node forwarding delay of the intermediate node, and is less than or equal to a sum of the intra-node forwarding delay of the intermediate node and the current Deadline scheduling delay; in response to that the current scheduling policy is the on-time policy, the node delay of each intermediate node is equal to the sum of the intra-node forwarding delay of the intermediate node and the current Deadline scheduling delay.
The following is the reason for allowable subject matter in claim 11.
The prior arts (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) and (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) fail to fairly teach or suggest wherein scheduling policies supported by all Deadline scheduling delays of each node are the same, and differences between any two adjacent Deadline scheduling delays in the node scheduling delay set are the same; the TLV format of the node parameter information comprises:
a type field configured to indicate that the TLV is the node parameter information; a length field configured to indicate a length of content of the TLV; a value of a minimum Deadline scheduling delay and a value of a maximum Deadline scheduling delay in the node scheduling delay set; an indication of the scheduling policy supported by all the Deadline scheduling delays of the node; and the difference between any two adjacent Deadline scheduling delays in the node scheduling delay set.
The following is the reason for allowable subject matter in claim 12.
The prior arts (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) and (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) fail to fairly teach or suggest receiving binding information; the binding information comprising at least one group of binding relationships, each group of binding relationships comprising one preset virtual network and a scheduling parameter corresponding to the preset virtual network, the scheduling parameter corresponding to the preset virtual network comprising a Deadline scheduling delay and a scheduling policy corresponding to the preset virtual network, and each node in the preset virtual network supporting the Deadline scheduling delay and the scheduling policy corresponding to the preset virtual network on each link; and in response to that a current network is the preset virtual network, determining the scheduling parameter corresponding to the preset virtual network as the current scheduling parameter.
The following is the reason for allowable subject matter in claim 18.
The prior arts (“Eckert”, US 20210297362 A1) and (“ZU”, CN 114051001 A) fail to fairly teach or suggest after selecting the target path from the at least one candidate path according to the deterministic delay, creating a forwarding entry for the target path; the forwarding entry comprising: an attribute indicating that the target path enables the Deadline scheduling; an attribute indicating a value of the current Deadline scheduling delay; an attribute indicating the current scheduling policy; and an attribute indicating a value of the deterministic delay of the target path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444