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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0158414 (Navon) in view of US 2023/0246971 (Sesha) and US 2020/0053018 (White).
With regard to claim 1, Navon discloses a network device comprising:
a flow identification circuit, arranged to identify specific flows of only a portion of a plurality of pre-defined flow types (Navon: Paragraph [0026]. It is noted that “a portion” can be the whole or less than the whole. In the case of Navon, the term “sampled” indicates that less than all of the information is used to determine the sampled rate.); and
a flow classification circuit, arranged to classify each of the plurality of flows into one of the plurality of pre-defined flow types (Navon: Paragraph [0026]. The classifier determines the flow by comparing thresholds to the rate.);
wherein the AI aided flow identification circuit does not generate a flow-type override indication for a second flow of the plurality of flows, and the flow classification circuit classifies the second flow into the first flow type or a second flow type of the plurality of pre-defined flow types according to a flow rate of the second flow (Navon: Paragraph [0026]).
Navon fails to disclose, but Sesha teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) aided flow identification circuit and that the identifying is through machine learning (ML) (Sesha: Abstract and Paragraphs [0013] to [0015]. The use of AI and machine learning for flow classification was known prior to the filing of the instant application, where the instant claim fails to provide substantial detail of how the AI and machine learning are actually implemented beyond the generic use of such technologies.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize AI and ML for the flow classification of Navon to utilize well-known technology for its well-known benefits of improving the classification of data, where in the case of Navon, the accuracy of the sampled rate would be more accurate and would improve over time as the AI/ML techniques learn from previous classifications.
Navon fails to teach, but White teaches generate a flow-type override indication for each of the specific flows included in a plurality of flows received by the network device; wherein the AI aided flow identification circuit generates a flow-type override indication for a first flow of the plurality of flows; and in response to the flow-type override indication for the first flow, the flow classification circuit classifies the first flow into a first flow type of the plurality of pre-defined flow types regardless of a flow rate of the first flow (White: Paragraph [0102]. Data sources may tag their traffic to force a classification, where there is merely an expectation to adhere to the classification, but evaluation of the appropriateness of the classification does not occur at the time of initial classification, which when combined with Navon, would have the classification applied without regard to the flow rate.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow for the tagging/overriding of potential classifications to allow the application to attest to the appropriate classification, thus ensuring that the traffic is classified according to the expected utilization by the source and prevents the need to sample the data, allowing such traffic to be classified appropriately with the first communication.
Navon fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling teaches that the first flow type is a file transfer flow type, and the second flow type is a low latency flow type or a video streaming flow type (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the classification of flows into types according to the type of traffic, where one type is for low latency traffic and the other is for latency tolerant traffic (such as file transfers) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. As a note, White presents the notion of low latency traffic being associated with one type of flow (White: Paragraph [0102]), but does not specifically recite the classification between the video streaming or low latency and file transfer traffic. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to classify between types of flows associated with low latency or video streaming and file transfer applications to ensure that these specific applications are afforded appropriate traffic characteristics (e.g. latency) in a way that optimizes the utilization of network resources.
With regard to claim 3, Navon in view of Sesha and White teaches the flow classification circuit is arranged to compare the flow rate of the second flow with a threshold value, and classifies the second flow into the second flow type when the flow rate of the second flow is lower than the threshold value (Navon: Paragraph [0026]. Which flow of Navon corresponds to the claimed first and second flow is arbitrary with the instant claim language, as it fails to provide for a specific distinction of the first and second flow type. In the case of Navon, when the threshold is exceeded, classification is in the first flow, making the second flow of Navon correspond to the second flow of claim 3.).
With regard to claim 4, Navon in view of Sesha and White teaches wherein the flow classification circuit is arranged to compare the flow rate of the second flow with a threshold value, and classifies the second flow into the first flow type when the flow rate of the second flow is higher than the threshold value (Navon: Paragraph [0026]. Which flow of Navon corresponds to the claimed first and second flow is arbitrary with the instant claim language, as it fails to provide for a specific distinction of the first and second flow type. In the case of Navon, when the threshold is exceeded, classification is in the first flow, making the first flow of Navon correspond to the second flow of claim 4.).
With regard to claim 5, Navon in view of Sesha and White teaches a control circuit, arranged to dynamically adjust the threshold value (Sesha: Paragraph [0016]. A typical use of AI/ML is to adjust the algorithms to change how classifications are performed, thus adjusting the threshold values used for the classifications.).
With regard to claim 6, Navon fails to teach, but Sesha teaches wherein the flow classification circuit is further arranged to check a user-defined setting, and the user-defined setting indicates dispatching a flow of the first flow type by its flow rate is enabled (Sesha: Paragraph [0078]. The administrator can provide rules, which would allow or deny specific classifications of traffic flows, where such classifications would be by the flow rates of the flows in the classifications.).
With regard to claim 7, Navon fails to teach, but Sesha teaches wherein the flow classification circuit is arranged to check a user-defined setting, and the user-defined setting indicates dispatching a flow of the first flow type by its flow rate is enabled (Sesha: Paragraph [0078]. The administrator can provide rules, which would allow or deny specific classifications of traffic flows, where such classifications would be by the flow rates of the flows in the classifications.)
Further, Navon fails to teach expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the flow classification circuit is further arranged to compare the flow rate of the second flow with a first threshold value and a second threshold value, and classifies the second flow into the second flow type when the flow rate of the second flow is neither lower than the first threshold value nor higher than the second threshold value (More specifically, Navon discusses an embodiment in detail with two classifications (Navon: Paragraph [0026]), but is clearly open to having more than the two classifications. Official Notice is taken that when providing more than two classifications with the comparison of a metric with thresholds for the classifying, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art to have different ranges associated with the different classifications, such that items above a first threshold would be classified in a first classifications, items between the first and a second threshold would be classified in the second (which corresponds to the instant claim language), and items under the second threshold would be classified in a third classification (or beyond, with additional thresholds being provide to have ranges for any additional classifications beyond the third).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to classify flow rates between a first and a second threshold in the second flow type to allow for more granular control of the classification beyond having just two classifications, where the disclosure of Navon would have led one of to consider the implementation of more than the two flow types in the example embodiment. It is noted that in the instant claim, there does not need to be any specific relationship between the user setting and the classification of the flow.
With regard to claim 8, the instant claim is similar to a combination of claims 4 and 6, and is thus rejected for similar reasons. It is noted that in the instant claim, there does not need to be any specific relationship between the user setting and the classification of the flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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 at (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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights