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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1, 4-79-10, 13-16, and 19-21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Mehler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0269724 A1) in view of Tangudu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0088222 A1).
As to claim 1, Mehler et al teach a method for quality-of-service processing of a network data packet (figure 4, pars. 0030 & 0032 (lines1-9)), comprising: invoking a data packet filtering module to obtain a type of service field value corresponding to a socket (figure 4, pars. 0033 (lines 1-9) & 0034, figure 8, par. 0054 (lines 1-8),defining an identifier to a service type associated with a switch/forwarding node); caching the type of service field value into metadata of the socket (figure 4, pars. 0033 (lines 10-17) & 0034, table storing the identifier and related data of the switch); and performing a packaging processing on the network data packet (figure 4, pars. 0033 (lines 17-25) & 0034, figure 8, par. 0054 (lines 8-21), perform package process on the network data packet).
However, Mehler et al do not teach that performing a packaging processing on the network data packet after routing based on the cached type of service field value.
Tangudu et al teach that performing a packaging processing on the network data packet after routing based on the cached type of service field value (figures 2-3, pars. 0032 (lines 37-49) & 0041 (lines 1-24)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tangudu et al as stated above with the method of Mehler et al for performing a packaging processing on the network data packet after routing based on the cached type of service field value because it would have improved latencies and guaranteeing performance in order of traffic priorities and service identity.
As to claim 4, Tangudu et al teach that determining a type of service field value of the network data packet after packaging; and performing a classification control processing on the network data packet after packaging according to the type of service field value (pars. 0005 & 0032, classifying the data packet based on priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tangudu et al as stated above with the method of Mehler et al for classifying the data packet based on priorities because it would have improved latencies and guaranteeing performance in order of traffic priorities and service identity.
As to claims 5-7, Tangudu et al discloses that the data packet filtering module comprises an extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) module (par. 0040 (lines 9-18)); the type of service field value comprises a type of service (ToS) value (par. 0040, page 7 column 1 (lines 28-38)); and the quadruple comprises a source IP address, a source port, a target IP address, and a target port corresponding to the network data packet (par. 0040, page 7 column 1 (lines 1-24)).
As to claims 9 and 13-16, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 and 4-7 above, since claims 9 and 13-16 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the method claims 1 and 4-7, and claims 9 and 13-16 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 and 4-7.
As to claims 10 and 19-21, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 and 4-7 above, since claims 10 and 19-21 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the method claims 1 and 4-7, and claims 10 and 19-21 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 and 4-7.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Mehler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0269724 A1) in view of Tangudu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0088222 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Jagadeeswaran et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0325287 A1).
As to claim 2, neither Mehler et al nor Tangudu et al teaches that adding the data packet filtering module in a kernel mode, wherein the data packet filtering module is configured to update a type of service field chart of a user mode.
Jagadeeswaran et al teach that adding the data packet filtering module in a kernel mode, wherein the data packet filtering module is configured to update a type of service field chart of a user mode (figure 2, pars. 0093-0094 & 0096, a kernel mode passed/copied process to a user mode); and adding an invoking point of the data packet filtering module in a quality of service processing course for a network data packet of a protocol stack in the kernel mode, and invoking the data packet filtering module at the invoking point through the socket after a first routing to obtain the type of service field value and cache the type of service field value into the metadata of the socket; wherein the type of service field chart comprises a corresponding relationship between a quadruple of the network data packet and the type of service field value (figure 3, pars. 0108, 0121 & 0125-0128, filtering the data packet using data packet field information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jagadeeswaran et al as stated above with the method of Mehler et al for filtering the data packet using kernel mode and user mode because it would have improved latencies and guaranteeing performance in order of using services modes and service identity.
As to claim 3, Jagadeeswaran et al teach that triggering a configuration file or a command line parameter corresponding to the network data packet in the user mode to determine the corresponding relationship; and writing the corresponding relationship into the type of service field chart (pars. 0103 & 0107-0108 & 0117-0118, updating data packet field using command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jagadeeswaran et al as stated above with the method of Mehler et al because it would have improved latencies and guaranteeing performance in order of using services modes and service identity.
As to claims 11-12, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 2-3 above, since claims 11-12 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the method claims 2-3, and claims 11-12 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 2-3.
As to claims 17-18, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 2-3 above, since claims 17-18 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the method claims 2-3, and claims 17-18 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 2-3.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
Hsu, U.S. Patent No. 11,438,448 B2.
Shah et al, U.S. Patent No. 8,073,968 B1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453January 16, 2026