DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 09/06/2024. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13, 15, 17-18, 20, 23-24, 26-27, 32, 37, 39-40, 42 and 47 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The applicant has claimed “and/or” several times throughout the claims.
The examiner is taking the position that in the case of “element A and/or element B” that the “and/or” covers embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken together. The phrase “and/or” is not inherently indefinite and therefore is not objected to or rejected as indefinite.
When construing the claims in the context of a possible anticipation or obviousness rejection, the examiner’s disclosure of any one item from the claimed list will provide sufficient teaching of the entire limitation. In Medline, for example, the PTAB stated that “and/or” is a “disjunctive alternative,” and the prior art showing one of the elements so joined renders the claim unpatentable (See, Medline Indus. Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, Case No. IPR2013-00173, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)).
Priority
This application claims priority of CN202210216687.7, filed on 03/07/2022. The assignee of record is CHINA MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO., LTD RESEARCH INSTITUTE and CHINA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD. The listed inventor(s) is/are: Yao et al.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For Claim 20, line 7, add “;” at end of the paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recite two “wherein” clauses in lines 10 and 12 respectively after the limitation “or” in line 9. It is unclear to the examiner if the limitation “or” only applies to the first “wherein” clause in line 12, or the limitation “or” applies to both of the “wherein” clauses in lines 10 and 12 respectively. For examination purpose, the limitation “or” is read to apply to both of the “wherein” clauses in lines 10 and 12 respectively. Examiner respectfully recommends that appropriate paragraph indentation could be applied to clearly state the structure of the limitations.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 10, 13, 23, 32 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20180278541 A1, published 09/27/2018; hereinafter Wu).
For Claim 1, Wu teaches a routing method, applied to performed by a routing system comprising a first node and a second node (Wu discloses a SDN controller as a first node and an edge switch as a second node; FIG. 1; para. [0038] “… The virtual switches form an SDDCN. The SDDCN is an SDN network, and includes an SDN controller 30. The edge switches 51-55 exchange a packet according to an instruction of the SDN controller 30 …”), the method comprising:
performing a computing management control function by the first node (Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0040] “… an SDN controller, such as the SDN controller 30 in FIG. 1, is used to implement a scheduling and decision function of an LBer (i.e. load balancer), and the SDN controller performs automated management on a service cluster according to a same IP address or a shared IP address of a serving node in a same service cluster …”); and
performing a computing routing function by the second node (Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0040] “… the SDN controller follows a serving node load balancing principle, and customizes a packet forwarding flow table to instruct a switch to direct user traffic to a specified serving node. The switch receives the forwarding flow table delivered by the SDN controller, and distributes traffic according to an instruction of the forwarding flow table …”).
For Claim 10, Wu teaches the method according to claim 1,wherein the routing system supports at least one of: a centralized scheduling mode (Wu teaches that the SDN controller performs a service scheduling and management function, FIG. 1, para. [0040]; Examiner notes that the branch of “a centralized scheduling mode” is selected for examination based on the claim structure), a distributed scheduling mode, or a scheduling mode centralized and distributed in coordination;
wherein the centralized scheduling mode is that service scheduling is all performed by the first node (Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0090] “… The SDN controller 30 performs load balancing scheduling based on a load balancing principle of serving node traffic, and customizes a corresponding forwarding flow table to instruct an edge switch to distribute traffic. …”);
wherein the distributed scheduling mode is that service scheduling is all performed by the second node;
wherein the scheduling mode centralized and distributed in coordination is that service scheduling is performed by the first node and the second node in coordination.
For Claim 13, Wu teaches the method according to claim 10,wherein, the distributed scheduling mode is performed by one second node; or the distributed scheduling mode is performed by a plurality of second nodes in coordination (The instant claim modifies elements of claim 10 for which Wu is not relied upon, without requiring such elements to be applied. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10).
For Claim 23, the claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 32, the claim is substantially similar to claim 10 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 47, the claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above. Additionally, Wu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program which causes a computer to execute a routing method (Wu, para. [0097] “… Persons of ordinary skill in the art may understand that all or some of the steps of the embodiments may be implemented by hardware or a program instructing related hardware. The program may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium …”).
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, 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 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.
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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 15, 17-18, 20, 24, 26-27, 37, 39-40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20180278541 A1, published 09/27/2018; hereinafter Wu), in view of Chen et al. (US 20230275830 A1, priority dated 06/28/2021; hereinafter Chen).
For Claim 2, Wu teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the computing management control function (Examiner notes that the branch of “the computing management control function” is selected for examination based on the claim structure) comprises at least one of: a computing perception function or a service scheduling function (Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0040] “… an SDN controller, such as the SDN controller 30 in FIG. 1, is used to implement a scheduling and decision function of an LBer (i.e. load balancer), and the SDN controller performs automated management on a service cluster according to a same IP address or a shared IP address of a serving node in a same service cluster …”);
wherein performing the computing management control function by the first node comprises:
collecting, through the computing perception function, computing resource and network information by the first node (Wu teaches the SDN controller detecting a health status of a service cluster/nodes (i.e. computing resources) and collecting network traffic statistics information; FIG. 1; para. [0038] “… As shown in FIG. 1, the tenant network 31 defines a service cluster 7 …”; para. [0045] “… An SDN controller 30 manages the service cluster of the tenant according to the shared IP address, identifies a serving node of the shared IP address in a tenant network, establishes the service cluster and expands a capacity of the service cluster based on the serving node of the shared IP address, regularly detects a health status of each node in the service cluster, and reduces a capacity of the service cluster or deletes the service cluster according to a health check result …”; para. [0092] “… The SDN controller 30 periodically collects, from the edge switch of the serving node, a traffic statistics result of each forwarding flow table statistically collected by the edge switch, filters service response traffic data from a traffic statistics result of each forwarding flow table in order to implement monitoring of traffic load of the serving node …”); and
performing, through the service scheduling function, service scheduling by the first node based on the computing resource and network information (Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0090] “… The SDN controller 30 performs load balancing scheduling based on a load balancing principle of serving node traffic, and customizes a corresponding forwarding flow table to instruct an edge switch to distribute traffic. …”); or
wherein the computing routing function comprises at least one of: a computing perception function, a service scheduling function, or a data forwarding function (Examiner notes that this wherein clause modifies an alternative that for which Wu is not applied, and thus is not required for the embodiment that is being addressed);
wherein performing the computing routing function by the second node comprises:
collecting, through the computing perception function, computing power and network information by the second node;
performing, through the service scheduling function, service scheduling by the second node based on the computing power and network information; and
forwarding, through the data forwarding function, a data packet by the second node based on the service scheduling.
Wu does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches computing power as network computing resource (Chen, para. [0136] “… The CFN (i.e. computing first network or computing force network) is used as an example. In the CFN, a network is for being aware of computing power information of a serving node in real time, and the serving node is flexibly selected based on the computing power information, to implement optimal utilization of a resource in the entire network …”).
Chen and Wu are analogous art because they are both related to packet forwarding network system.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the collecting computing power information techniques of Chen with the system of Wu to facilitate a load balancing function for performing session persistence in a network system (Chen, para. [0003]).
For Claim 4, Wu-Chen teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the computing perception function includes at least one of: a computing power discovery function (Chen, FIG. 1; para. [0119] & para. [0120] “… The MEC site collects computing power … A deamon of the MEC site collects the computing power based on an APP granularity. Because Node 1 and Node 2 illustrated in FIG. 1 are both container environments, a same deamon is used for collection. If different nodes are heterogeneous environments, different deamons are needed for collection. Computing power information is sent to a local CFN router through the border gateway protocol (BGP) …”), or a computing power notification function;
wherein collecting, through the computing perception function, computing power and network information by the second node (Examiner notes that this wherein clause modifies elements of claim 2 for which Wu-Chen is not relied upon, without requiring such elements to be applied. Accordingly, this wherein clause is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2) comprises: discovering, through the computing power discovery function, computing power and network information for a third node by the second node; and notifying, through the computing power notification function, another network node of the computing power and network information discovered by the second node, and/or collecting computing power and network information notified by another network node. See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 5, Wu teaches the method according to claim 1,wherein the routing system supports at least one of: a centralized perception mode (Wu teaches that the SDN controller performs a service scheduling and management function, FIG. 1, para. [0040]; Examiner notes that the branch of “a centralized perception mode” is selected for examination based on the claim structure), a distributed perception mode, or a perception mode centralized and distributed in coordination;
wherein the centralized perception mode is that computing resource and network information is all collected by the first node (Wu teaches the SDN controller detecting a health status of a service cluster/nodes (i.e. computing resources) and collecting network traffic statistics information; FIG. 1; para. [0038] “… As shown in FIG. 1, the tenant network 31 defines a service cluster 7 …”; para. [0045] “… An SDN controller 30 manages the service cluster of the tenant according to the shared IP address, identifies a serving node of the shared IP address in a tenant network, establishes the service cluster and expands a capacity of the service cluster based on the serving node of the shared IP address, regularly detects a health status of each node in the service cluster, and reduces a capacity of the service cluster or deletes the service cluster according to a health check result …”; para. [0092] “… The SDN controller 30 periodically collects, from the edge switch of the serving node, a traffic statistics result of each forwarding flow table statistically collected by the edge switch, filters service response traffic data from a traffic statistics result of each forwarding flow table in order to implement monitoring of traffic load of the serving node …”);
wherein the distributed perception mode is that computing power and network are all collected by the second node;
wherein the perception mode centralized and distributed in coordination is that a first part of computing power and network information is collected by the first node, and a second part of the computing power and network information is collected by the second node, wherein the first part is static topology information of computing power and network, and the second part is dynamic real-time information of computing power and network.
Wu does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches computing power as network computing resource (Chen, para. [0136] “… The CFN (i.e. computing first network or computing force network) is used as an example. In the CFN, a network is for being aware of computing power information of a serving node in real time, and the serving node is flexibly selected based on the computing power information, to implement optimal utilization of a resource in the entire network …”).
See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 15, Wu teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein for the centralized scheduling mode, the method further comprises:
when a service request is received (Wu exemplifies User 63 may send service request to the SDN controller 30 in FIG. 1), determining one or more destination addresses (Wu teaches an IP address of a serving node in a determined service cluster to fulfill the service request) by the first node based on computing resource and network information, and sending the one or more destination addresses to the second node (Wu teaches determining a serving node in a service cluster which has a same IP address or a shared IP address based on the destination address of the service request packet and a load balancing principle, and delivering the generated forwarding flow table to the edge switches; FIG. 1, FIG. 5; para. [0040] “… an SDN controller, such as the SDN controller 30 in FIG. 1, is used to implement a scheduling and decision function of an LBer, and the SDN controller performs automated management on a service cluster according to a same IP address or a shared IP address of a serving node in a same service cluster … the SDN controller follows a serving node load balancing principle, and customizes a packet forwarding flow table to instruct a switch to direct user traffic to a specified serving node …”; para. [0090] “… S53. The SDN controller 30 parses a packet source and destination information of the service request packet, determines a service cluster corresponding to the service request packet according to destination IP address information of the service request packet, selects the serving node A1 in the service cluster A as a target serving node according to a preset load balancing policy, calculates forwarding information between the user 1 and the edge switch 201 of the serving node A1, generates respective forwarding flow tables of the edge switch 201 and the edge switch 200 according to the determined forwarding information, and respectively delivers the respective forwarding flow tables to the edge switch 201 of the serving node Al and the edge switch 200 of the user 1 …”); and
forwarding a data packet by the second node based on the one or more destinations (Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0040] “… The switch receives the forwarding flow table delivered by the SDN controller, and distributes traffic according to an instruction of the forwarding flow table …”);
for the distributed scheduling mode (Examiner notes that the limitations corresponding to “the distributed scheduling mode” modify elements of claim 10 for which Wu is not relied upon, without requiring such elements to be applied. Accordingly, the limitations corresponding to “the distributed scheduling mode” is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10), the method further comprises: when a service request is received, determining one or more destination addresses by the second node based on computing power and network information, and forwarding a data packet based on the one or more destinations.
Wu does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches computing power as network computing resource (Chen, para. [0136] “… The CFN (i.e. computing first network or computing force network) is used as an example. In the CFN, a network is for being aware of computing power information of a serving node in real time, and the serving node is flexibly selected based on the computing power information, to implement optimal utilization of a resource in the entire network …”).
See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 17, Wu-Chen teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein forwarding a data packet based on the one or more destinations specifically comprises:
when one destination address is determined, forwarding the data packet to a node corresponding to the one destination address (Examiner notes that the branch of “one destination address” is selected for examination based on the claim structure; Wu, FIG. 1; para. [0040] “… The SDN controller captures an IP address conflict in a tenant network, identifies the shared IP address and manages the service cluster based on the shared IP address, and distinguishes different serving nodes in the service cluster using a MAC address. In addition, the SDN controller follows a serving node load balancing principle, and customizes a packet forwarding flow table to instruct a switch to direct user traffic to a specified serving node. The switch receives the forwarding flow table delivered by the SDN controller, and distributes traffic according to an instruction of the forwarding flow table …”); or
when a plurality of destination addresses are determined, forwarding the data packet to a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of destination addresses, and carrying a measurement message in the data packet; receiving measurement response messages returned by the plurality of nodes, selecting a destination address from the plurality of destination addresses based on measurement results carried in the measurement response messages, and forwarding the data packet to a node corresponding to the destination address selected.
For Claim 18, Wu-Chen teaches the method according to claim 17, further comprising: generating a routing forwarding table by the second node based on the one destination address or the destination address selected (Chen teaches the CFN router generating a session table for routing the packet flow to a service instance, the session identifier including the destination address; FIG. 2, FIG. 9; para. [0127] “… 2. The ingress CFN router selects an S1 instance of Node 2 for service by using the load balancing algorithm for the first data packet of a flow for a user to access S1. As shown in FIG. 2, load of the S1 instance of Node 2 in three serving nodes is the smallest, and a corresponding metric is the smallest …”; para. [0128] “… 3. The ingress CFN router sends the first data packet to the egress CFN router connected to Node 2 and generates a session table for the flow …”; para. [0170] “… As shown in FIG. 9, the first session identifier carried in the packet B includes the source address (SIP1) and the destination address (DIP1) …”); and
forwarding subsequent data packets based on the routing forwarding table (Chen, FIG. 2; para. [0129] “… 4. Subsequent data packets of the flow are sent to a same instance, namely, an instance of an APP 1 of Node 2, to maintain a session connection …”);
wherein the second node supports at least one of: an addressing mode based on a service ID, an addressing mode based on an Internet Protocol (IP) address (Chen, FIG. 9; para. [0159] “… Refer to FIG. 9, a first node (a conversion node) receives a packet A sent by a client C1. The packet A includes a source address (SIP1), a destination address (DIP1), a protocol type (TCP), a source port (TSP1), and a destination port (TDP1), where the source address (SIP1) and the destination address (DIP1) are in a network-side IP header of the packet …”), or an addressing mode based on a service ID and an IP address. See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 20, Wu-Chen teaches the method according to claim 18,
wherein when the second node supports the addressing mode based on the service ID, determining a forwarding path by the second node based on a service ID carried in the service request, and forwarding the data packet based on the forwarding path;
when the second node supports the addressing mode based on the IP address, determining a forwarding path by the second node based on an IP address carried in the service request, and forwarding the data packet based on the forwarding path (Chen teaches the CFN router generating a session table for routing the packet flow to a service instance, the session identifier including the destination address which is an IP address; Examiner notes that the branch of “based on an IP address” is selected for examination based on the claim structure since the branch of “based on an IP address” is selected for examination in claim 18 upon which claim 20 depends; FIG. 2, FIG. 9; para. [0127] “… 2. The ingress CFN router selects an S1 instance of Node 2 for service by using the load balancing algorithm for the first data packet of a flow for a user to access S1. As shown in FIG. 2, load of the S1 instance of Node 2 in three serving nodes is the smallest, and a corresponding metric is the smallest …”; para. [0128] “… 3. The ingress CFN router sends the first data packet to the egress CFN router connected to Node 2 and generates a session table for the flow …”; para. [0159] “… Refer to FIG. 9, a first node (a conversion node) receives a packet A sent by a client C1. The packet A includes a source address (SIP1), a destination address (DIP1), a protocol type (TCP), a source port (TSP1), and a destination port (TDP1), where the source address (SIP1) and the destination address (DIP1) are in a network-side IP header of the packet …”; para. [0170] “… As shown in FIG. 9, the first session identifier carried in the packet B includes the source address (SIP1) and the destination address (DIP1) …”);
when the second node supports the addressing mode based on the service ID and the IP address, determining a forwarding path by the second node based on a service ID and an IP address carried in the service request, and forwarding the data packet based on the forwarding path. See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 24, the claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 26, the claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 27, the claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 37, the claim is substantially similar to claim 15 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 39, the claim is substantially similar to claim 17 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 40, the claim is substantially similar to claim 18 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 42, the claim is substantially similar to claim 20 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. Ma et al. (US 20230396677 A1) teaches that a network device obtains computing power information indicating computing power of a compute node corresponding to the network device. The network device generates an application-layer traffic optimization ALTO message that carries the computing power information. The network device sends the ALTO message to a second network device based on an ALTO protocol. This method can improve resource and network utilization and improve user experience (Abstract).
ii. Mao et al. (US 20240214301 A1) teaches a packet processing method and a related apparatus, applied to a network device. The method includes: receiving a first packet sent by a client, where the first packet includes target identification information, the target identification information is used to identify a target destination, the target destination is a destination selected from N candidate destinations by the network device for the client, and N is an integer greater than 0; and determining the target destination based on the target identification information, and forwarding the first packet to the target destination, to trigger the target destination to process the first packet (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZONGHUA DU whose telephone number is (408)918-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM PST.
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 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.
/Z.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444