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 .
2. This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/16/2023 where claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37CFR 1.97.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 10/16/2024. These drawing are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13,14, 15, 18, 19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20220368608 A1)hereinafter Chen and further in view of Schrum (US 20140029447 A1)hereinafter Schrum
As to claim 1. Chen teaches A method comprising:
receiving, by a node, a network packet to be forwarded to a network destination; identifying, based on data stored in a forwarding information data structure of the node, a first path to the network destination, wherein the first path satisfies a first cost criterion; ([0096][0129] Fig. 1, Fig. 7, first forwarding node R1 receives the data flow, forwards data flow a to receive node, service level information table1 and table 2, when service level information in satisfies delay threshold)
Chen does not teach determining that a path latency of the first path exceeds a threshold latency; selecting, based on the data stored in the forwarding information data structure of the node, a second path to the network destination, wherein the second path satisfies a second cost criterion and does not satisfy the first cost criterion; (and
forwarding, by the node, the network packet to the network destination via a local interface associated with the second path.
Schrum teaches determining that a path latency of the first path exceeds a threshold latency; ([0058] Fig. 5, the transmission route indicated in the primary forwarding rule exceeds the PER threshold, and/or that the link delivery latency associated with the transmission route indicated in the primary forwarding rule exceeds the link delivery latency threshold. )
selecting, based on the data stored in the forwarding information data structure of the node, ([0018][0021][0060] secondary route is selected based frame forwarding rule e.g., stored in the forwarding rule database 104 and/or the forwarding rule database 114), secondary forwarding rule (that specifies a secondary route)
a second path to the network destination, wherein the second path satisfies a second cost criterion ([0059][0060]Fig. 5, determined whether the link performance values i.e., link delivery latency, associated with the secondary forwarding rule satisfy corresponding link performance thresholds.)
and does not satisfy the first cost criterion; ([0058] Fig. 5, the link delivery latency associated with the transmission route indicated in the primary forwarding rule exceeds the link delivery latency threshold)
and
forwarding, by the node, the network packet to the network destination via a local interface associated with the second path. ([0061] Fig. 5, he frame is forwarded to the destination hybrid device in accordance with the secondary forwarding rule i.e., secondary rout, secondary forwarding rule can indicate an exit interface of the hybrid network device from which the frame should be forwarded, a destination network interface, and a communication link via which the frame should be transmitted.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Schrum with the teaching of Chen because Schrum teaches that sing frame forwarding rule by hybrid network device to identify and select alternate transmission routes would help to minimize confusion/conflicts at legacy learning bridge. (Schrum [0013])
Regarding claims 13, 18, there is recited a Base station with steps that identical to the functions performed by the method recited in claim 1. Prior art Chen discloses a network device in para [0082] Fig. 3, includes a processor couple to a memory with at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction is loaded and executed by the processor 301, to implement a step performed. As a result, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
As to claim 2. The combination of Chen and Schrum specifically Chen teaches
wherein the first cost criterion defines a least cost path. ([0129] Fig. 7, if the forwarding nodes on the transmission path 1 transmit the data flow a by using the group of service levels, an actual transmission delay of the transmission path 1 may be 2+1+1+0.3<5 ms, i.e., least cost path, R1, R2 R4)
As to claim 3. the combination of Chen and Schrum specifically Chen teaches
wherein the first path is determined to satisfy the first cost criterion when a cost metric value of the first path does not exceed a cost metric value of the least cost path. ([0148] . When the sum of the forwarding delays corresponding to the target service levels of the forwarding nodes on the transmission path is less than or equal to the transmission delay of the data flow, if the forwarding nodes on the transmission path transmit the data flow by using the target service levels, it may be ensured that an actual transmission delay of the data flow can meet the transmission delay required by the service. )
As to claim 4. the combination of Chen and Schrum specifically Chen teaches wherein the cost metric value of the first path reflects a number of hops of the first path. ([0129] Fig. 7, A transmission path of the data flow a is a transmission path 1, and the transmission path 1 includes forwarding nodes R1, R2, and R4, where service level information of the forwarding node R1 is table 1, service level information of the forwarding nodes R2 and R4 is Table 2/ multiple hops cost metric in Table)
Claim 15 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 5. he combination of Chen and Schrum specifically Schrum teaches wherein the second cost criterion is based on a cost metric threshold. ([0059][0060]Fig. 5, determined whether the link performance values i.e., link delivery latency, associated with the secondary forwarding rule satisfy corresponding link performance thresholds.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Schrum with the teaching of Chen because Schrum teaches that sing frame forwarding rule by hybrid network device to identify and select alternate transmission routes would help to minimize confusion/conflicts at legacy learning bridge. (Schrum [0013])
As to claim 14.the combination of Chen and Schrum specifically Chen teaches
wherein: the first cost criterion defines a least cost path; ([0129] Fig. 7, if the forwarding nodes on the transmission path 1 transmit the data flow a by using the group of service levels, an actual transmission delay of the transmission path 1 may be 2+1+1+0.3<5 ms, i.e., least cost path, R1, R2 R4)
and the first path is determined to satisfy the first cost criterion when a cost metric value of the first path does not exceed a cost metric value of the least cost path. ([0148] . When the sum of the forwarding delays corresponding to the target service levels of the forwarding nodes on the transmission path is less than or equal to the transmission delay of the data flow, if the forwarding nodes on the transmission path transmit the data flow by using the target service levels, it may be ensured that an actual transmission delay of the data flow can meet the transmission delay required by the service. )
Claim 19 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 14.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Schrum and further in view of Izaiku et al. (US 20060013127 A1)hereinafter Izaiku
As to claim 7. the combination of Chen and Schrum specifically Chen teaches wherein: the data stored in the forwarding information data structure comprises([0010] [0129] Fig. 1, Fig. 7, service level includes a forwarding delay, a service burst size, and a service bandwidth that correspond to the service level first forwarding node R1 receives the data flow, service level information table1 and table 2, )
he combination of Chen and Schrum does not teach a first definition of a first priority routing group and a second definition of a second priority routing group;
the first priority routing group is associated with a first subset of a plurality of paths to the network destination, the first subset of the plurality of path comprising the first path, and
and the second priority routing is associated with a second subset of the plurality of paths to the network destination, the second subset of the plurality of path comprising the second path, and
each path in the second subset satisfying the second cost criterion.
Izaiku teaches a first definition of a first priority routing group and a second definition of a second priority routing group ([0090] multiple paths (routes) to one destination, the node according to the present embodiment advertises a first label to a neighboring node corresponding to the next hop on the priority path (path with the lowest cost to the destination)
the first priority routing group is associated with a first subset of a plurality of paths to the network destination, the first subset of the plurality of path comprising the first path each path in the first subset satisfying the first cost criterion; ([0090] [0093] Fig. 2, Fig. 10a-c, multiple paths (routes) to one destination, the node according to the present embodiment advertises a first label to a neighboring node corresponding to the next hop on the priority path (path with the lowest cost to the destination) i.e., includes first path; next hops (node C cost 20 and node F cost 50) on two paths; priority 0)
and the second priority routing is associated with a second subset of the plurality of paths to the network destination, the second subset of the plurality of path comprising the second path, and each path in the second subset satisfying the second cost criterion. ([0090][0095]Fig. 10b, Fig. 10C, node 100 has a function of advertising reception labels for respective destinations to neighboring nodes., there are multiple paths (routes) to one destination, the paths identified by the path information held by the priority path management section 11 other than the path determined as the priority path information, and registers path information (next hop and cost) on a path with the highest priority (with the lowest cost) as detour path information to the data 2. (priority 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Izaiku with the teaching of Chen and Schrum because Izaiku teaches with priority labels to paths when a failure is detected on the priority path to the neighboring node, it is possible to immediately forward data, to the neighboring node on the first detour path thereby reducing the traffic disconnection period, and easily switching the paths. (Izaiku [0049])
. Claim 17 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
As to claim 12. the combination of Chen, Schrum, Izaiku, specifically Schrum teaches a network interface for forwarding the network packet to the network destination. ([0061] Fig. 5, he frame is forwarded to the destination hybrid device in accordance with the secondary forwarding rule i.e., secondary rout, secondary forwarding rule can indicate an exit interface of the hybrid network device from which the frame should be forwarded, a destination network interface, and a communication link via which the frame should be transmitted.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Schrum with the teaching of Chen because Schrum teaches that sing frame forwarding rule by hybrid network device to identify and select alternate transmission routes would help to minimize confusion/conflicts at legacy learning bridge. (Schrum [0013])
he combination of Chen, Schrum does not teach further comprising: identifying, based on the first definition of the first priority routing group, and the second definition of the second priority routing group,
Izaiku teaches further comprising: identifying, based on the first definition of the first priority routing group ([0090] multiple paths (routes) to one destination, the node according to the present embodiment advertises a first label to a neighboring node corresponding to the next hop on the priority path (path with the lowest cost to the destination)
and the second definition of the second priority routing group, ([0090][0095]Fig. 10b, Fig. 10C, node 100 has a function of advertising reception labels for respective destinations to neighboring nodes., there are multiple paths (routes) to one destination, the paths identified by the path information held by the priority path management section 11 other than the path determined as the priority path information, and registers path information (next hop and cost) on a path with the highest priority (with the lowest cost) as detour path information to the data 2. (priority 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Izaiku with the teaching of Chen and Schrum because Izaiku teaches with priority labels to paths when a failure is detected on the priority path to the neighboring node, it is possible to immediately forward data, to the neighboring node on the first detour path thereby reducing the traffic disconnection period, and easily switching the paths. (Izaiku [0049])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Schrum and Izaiku and further in view of Brahmaroutu (US Pub: 20030033427 A1) hereinafter Brah
As to claim 8. the combination of Chen, Schrum and Izaiku does not teach wherein the network destination is identified by a subnetwork address.
Brah teaches wherein the network destination is identified by a subnetwork address. ([0030] Fig. 2, fabric manager 250 configured for learning or discovering fabric (network) topology, assigning unique addresses known as Local Identifiers (LID) to all ports that are connected to subnet)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Brah with the teaching of Chen, Schrum and Izaiku because Brah teaches having unique subnet address would reduce latency thereby minimizing single p[point of failure. (Brah [0037])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Schrum, Izaiku and further in view of Wood et al. (US 20180097725 A1) hereinafter Wood
As to claim 9. the combination of Chen, Schrum, Izaiku does not teach wherein each path of the plurality of paths is associated with an identifier of a next-hop network interface.
Wood teaches wherein each path of the plurality of paths is associated with an identifier of a next-hop network interface. ([0042] Fig. 1, a path descriptor include an Explicit Route Object (ERO) for an LSP, include information describing the corresponding path including path type (primary or detour); bandwidth for each Class of Service (CoS) value; and/or, for each node in the ordered path from ingress to egress, a node identifier, ingress label, and egress label.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine teaching of Wood with the teaching of Chen, Schum, Izaiku because Wood teaches that having a node identifier would allow to determine a worst cost path of in the set of N+1 paths, remove the worst cost path from the set of N+1 paths, thereby reducing total cost. (Wood [0017])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertin, Izaiku and further in view of Lindem et al. (US Pub: 20150350062 A1) hereinafter Lindem
As to claim 10. the combination of Chen, Schrum, Izaiku specifically Izaiku teaches wherein the first priority routing group is represented by a primary group of ([0065] Fig. 2B, first priority group 258, 259 for path 1, with priority 2)
and the second priority routing group is represented by ([0065] Fig. 2B, first priority group 260, 261, for path 2, with priority 3)
Lindem teaches represented by a primary group of a routing information base (RIB) ([0008] control plane device includes a storage medium to store centralized control plane software, a local routing information base (RIB))
and by a backup group of a routing information base (RIB). ([0090]Fig. 4, the router 401 can include a set of line cards 417 that process and forward the incoming data traffic toward the respective destination nodes by identifying the destination and forwarding the data traffic to the appropriate line card 417, line cards 417 implement backup path calculation process and routing information base or forwarding information base 405B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Lindem with the teaching of Bertin and Izaiku because Medved teaches having routing information base would allow to improve efficiency of computing a node-protecting remote loop-free alternate (LFA) in a network topology graph. (Lindem [0008])
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Schrum, Izaiku and further in view of Medved et al. (US Pub: 20140280834 A1) hereinafter Medved
As to claim 11. the combination of Chen, Schrum, Izaiku does not teach wherein the forwarding information data structure is represented by a forwarding information base (FIB).
Medved teaches wherein the forwarding information data structure is represented by a forwarding information base (FIB) ([0015] SDN controller configure the control plane and dictate how the network devices route data and configures the routing table or forwarding table (i.e., forwarding information base) in a network device based on the network preferences).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Medved with the teaching of Bertin and Kotta because Medved teaches generating metrics and compare these metrics to predefined threshold would allow to reduce cost by being able to use a low-cost processor for executing the OAM engine. ([Medved [0048],
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6, 16, 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6 prior art Turlington; Matthew William et al. [US 20140068106 A1] teaches in para [0024] In another embodiment, the latency manager 103 may determine low-level and high-level latency thresholds based on the data traffic over the transmission network, and the latency threshold may be dynamically set based on the low-level and high-level latency thresholds. For example, when there are high levels of data traffic (e.g., when data usage is high) in the transmission network, the latency threshold may be at a higher level to better indicate latency increases that are not simply due to the high levels of data traffic. If, for instance, a latency threshold is originally set to 7 ms and data traffic increases, the latency threshold may be dynamically raised to a new level of 12 ms to provide more accurate detection of latency increase that are not merely due to increased data usage.
And prior art Mishra et al. [US 20110164527 A1] disclose in para [0114] FIG. 6 shows alternative least cost paths 680 and 690 to a backhaul access point 670. Path 680 may traverse nodes 610, 620, and 630 to accomplish a minimum delay path. Path 690 may traverse nodes 610, 640, 650, and 660 to accomplish a minimum power path. Both paths along with the nodes and BAP may reside within the MANET 615. In general, it will be understood that different paths and more generally different network topologies may result from the use of different criteria, parameters, characteristics, and so forth for various nodes, links, and communication types within the MANET. FIG. 6 more specifically shows two different shortest paths to a BAP 670 using optimization of minimum delay versus minimum power usage options as an example. It will be understood that while two paths are shown in FIG. 6, numerous other paths may be provided for different parameters, and that in certain instances, more than one path may have an equal cost.
However, combination or prior arts records Turlington and Mishra does not teach
wherein the second path is determined to satisfy the second cost criterion while not satisfying the first cost criterion when a cost metric value of the second path exceeds a cost metric value of the first path by at most the cost metric threshold.
Therefore, claim 6 independently would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16 and 20 would be allowable for the same above reasons.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joshi; Avinash et al. [US 10440631 B1] Payload type aware routing in wireless mesh networks
Kottapalli; Ravi Kumar Reddy [US 20210029019 A1] MACHINE LEARNING-BASED PATH PRIORITY DETERMINATION FOR ROUTING DATA IN SOFTWARE-DEFINED NETWORKS
Jiao; Fan [US 20160234099 A1] APPLICATION-BASED PATH COMPUTATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATIQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-6244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 PM M-F Eastern.
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, Un Cho can be reached at 5712727919. 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.
/ATIQUE AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights