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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on December 2, 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
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 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “a first intelligent policy routing” in line 7 of the claim which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what said term pertains to. For the purpose of examination, said term has been interpreted as segment routing policy. Appropriate corrections and/or clarifications are required where applicable.
Claim 1 further recites “the first intelligent policy routing is provided with matching priorities of the plurality of source access domain segment routing policies" in lines 14-15 of the claim which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a policy can be provided with matching priorities of other policies. Appropriate corrections and/or clarifications are required where applicable.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 due to its dependency.
Claim 4 recites the term “a first intelligent policy routing” in line 9 of the claim which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what said term pertains to. For the purpose of examination, said term has been interpreted as segment routing policy. Appropriate corrections and/or clarifications are required where applicable.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 due to its dependency.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava et al “Bhargava”, US-PGPub. No. 20230269167 in view of Mao et al “Mao”, US-PGPub. No. 20230064433.
As per claims 1 and 3-12, Bhargava teaches a non-transitory storage medium (Paragraph(s) [0082]) and an electronic device (Fig. 2 – computing system 20, Paragraph(s) [0076]) comprising a processor, a communication interface, a storage medium, and a communication bus, wherein the processor, the communication interface, and the storage medium complete communication with each other through the communication bus (Fig. 2, Paragraph(s) [0076-0077]);
the storage medium is to store a computer program (Paragraph(s) [0082]);
the processor is to implement a path selecting method (Paragraph(s) [0045]; each path is associated with a BSID, which is a SID value that represents an SR policy (or more specifically, its selected path) to upstream routers) based on a software-defined wide area network end-to-end policy (Paragraph(s) [0037-0038]; software-defined networking (SDN). Segment routing (SR) can also be applied to Ethernet (e.g., IEEE 802.1 and variants thereof), providing numerous benefits for SR, including, for example, scalable end-to-end policy, easy incorporation in IP and SDN architectures, operational simplicity, a balance between distributed intelligence, centralized optimization, and application-based policy creation, and the like), wherein, the method is applied to a controller in a domain where a start point of a service flow of a designated service is located (Paragraph(s) [0011], [0084], [0091]. The prior art further teaches the “head-end” is the network element (e.g., node, router, switch, etc.) where the SR policy is initiate (Paragraph(s) [0046]). It is noted that the head-end has been equated as the “start point”) ), the method comprises:
deploying a mapping relationship between the designated service and a first traffic engineering classification for the start point (Paragraph(s) [0028], [0037-0038], [0044], [0063]; simplifying Segment Routing-Traffic Engineering (SR-TE) deployments with hierarchical SR policies. For example, advertising BSID to the SR policy mapping via IGP (e.g., using Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS), or the like));
issuing configuration to enable the start point to introduce the service flow of the designated service into a first segment routing policy group through a routing prefix, wherein the first segment routing policy group is provided with a first intelligent policy routing to which the first traffic engineering classification is mapped (Paragraph(s) [0038], [0042], [0044], [0063], [0072]; the concept of “BSID to SR policy mapping” refers to the dynamic representation of the remote portion of a locally-initiated SR policy based on the status of remote paths (e.g., in one or more downstream domains) and the interpretation (mapping) of a BSID in the SR policy to create and/or modify the remote portion. Since BSID to SR policy mapping is advertised via IGP, the head-end nodes (e.g., node A) can now verify explicit paths that include SR policies even if BSID is dynamically allocated and can potentially change. Thus, if there is any change in the BSID value on a SR policy, it can be handled without any change in the configuration on the hierarchical SR policy provided at the head-end node);
deploying a plurality of source access domain segment routing policies for the start point (Paragraph(s) [0046], [0063]), and configuring each source access domain segment routing policy with a binding segment identifier BSID mapping relationship corresponding to a plurality of end-to-end paths (Paragraph(s) [0009], [0043]; creating a “stitched” SR policy that can be stitched (or appended) to an end of a local SR policy. The stitched SR policy can be represented by a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID), whereby the BSID may be dynamically updated as needed based on the status of SR paths through a downstream domain), wherein each source access domain segment routing policy has a different path but has a same end point, and the first intelligent policy routing (Paragraph(s) [0038]; end-to-end policy with distributed intelligence) is provided with matching priorities of the plurality of source access domain segment routing policies (Paragraph(s) [0013], [0045]);
enabling an In-situ Flow Information Telemetry IFIT path quality detection function for a plurality of paths in the domain bound to the plurality of source access domain segment routing policies (Paragraph(s) [0006], [0046], [0049]; Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) systems may be configured with Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) to detect faults between nodes connected by a link. The prior art further teaches when the remote topology of the distributed system changes over time, a border node can detect the change and advertise this information to the upstream domain, even without the use of a higher level controller (Paragraph(s) [0100]));
receiving IFIT path quality detection information sent by a controller in a further domain through which the service flow passes, to obtain IFIT path quality detection information corresponding to BSIDs in the further domain in the BSID mapping relationship (Paragraph(s) [0026], [0072], [0100], [0111]);
pushing the obtained IFIT path quality detection information corresponding to the BSIDs in the further domain in the BSID mapping relationship to the start point (Paragraph(s) [0056], [0088]; the SR policy can be represented by a BSID, whereby the BSID may be dynamically updated as needed based on the status of a SR paths through a downstream domain. As such, a node in an upstream domain, which would not normally be knowledgeable of the status of the path in a downstream domain, can be updated in order to better select or create SR policies for only active or operational paths) and the IFIT path quality detection information corresponding to the BSIDs in the further domain pushed by the controller and selects a service flow path based on the first intelligent policy routing (Paragraph(s) [0038], [0045], [0100]).
Bhargava fails to explicitly teach but Mao teaches the start point calculates end-to-end path quality of the plurality of source access domain segment routing policies according to IFIT path quality detection information in the domain where the start point is located (Paragraph(s) [0042], [0061], [0136], the second network device enables the in-situ flow information telemetry iFIT transmission quality monitoring based on the application information, to sense network service quality in real time, thereby fast demarcating and locating a network transmission service fault, and improving network quality of service. Mao further teaches determining, based on the application information, a network slice used to transmit the first packet, selecting a quality of service QoS priority or a bandwidth guarantee policy for the first packet, selecting a transmission path for the first packet, enabling in-situ flow information telemetry iFIT transmission quality monitoring, and performing traffic load balancing, to determine the transmission path for the first packet (Paragraph [0171])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Bhargava and Mao in order to provide an efficient way of enhancing network routings while monitoring the quality/performance of multiple transmission paths.
As per claim 2, Bhargava teaches wherein, the method further comprises:
generating a list of BSIDs according to the BSID mapping relationship, and registering the list of BSIDs for which IFIT path quality detection information needs to be synchronized, with the controller in the further domain associated with the service flow through a preset interface, such that the controller in the further domain synchronizes the IFIT path quality detection information with the controller in the domain where the start point is located according to the list of BSIDs (Paragraph(s) [0056], [0095-0096], [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights