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 in response to application filed 04/25/2025.
Claim 1-20 is pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2025, 09/29/2025 has been placed in record and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bevilacqua et al. (US 2020/0403925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bevilacqua discloses a method comprising:
writing, by a first device when a destination address of the first data packet points to a first object, identification information into a differentiated services code point (DSCP) field of a first data packet to obtain a modified first data packet ([0032]-[0033]: The content provider 102 may provide (e.g. write) tag, mark and/or associate content, such as each packet of a plurality of packets associated with content, with a class of service parameter value (and/or quality of service parameter value). A portion of each packet of the plurality of packets may be associated with and/or include (e.g., in a header) a class of service parameter (and/or quality of service parameter) of a plurality of class of service parameters. A class of service parameter (and/or quality of service parameter) may be a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value. A class of service parameter may include and/or be associated one or more network addresses (e.g., a range of IP addresses, an IPv4 source address range, an IPv6 source address range, an IPv4 destination address range, an IPv6 destination address range, etc.);
sending, by the first device, the modified first data packet; obtaining, by a second device, the modified first data packet ([0034]: To identify a packet as originating from a content source and/or the Internet 126, the peering router 104 may examine the source address identified in the header of the packet and compare the source address with the record (e.g., database, storage, memory, etc.). The peering router 104 may tag, mark, and/or override the class of service parameter value included with a packet with a value that indicates the content sources (e.g., the content provider 102, the content server, 110, etc.) from which the packet was received);
obtaining, by the second device, the identification information from the DSCP field; and allowing or forbidding, by the second device and based on the identification information, an access operation corresponding to the first data packet ([0054]: The interface 107 may use the filter element to determine that values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in a packet destined for and/or associated with the interface 112 matches the authorized value. When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets match the authorized value, the interface 107 may send/forward the packets to the interface 112. When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets do not match the authorized value, the interface 107 may prevent (e.g., block, discard, etc.) the packets from being sent/forwarded to the interface 112).
Regarding claim 4, Bevilacqua discloses the method of claim 1, wherein writing the identification information comprises writing, by the first device, the identification information into the DSCP field using an instance ([0032]: The content provider 102 may provide tag, mark and/or associate content, such as each packet of a plurality of packets associated with content, with a class of service parameter value. A class of service parameter (and/or quality of service parameter) may be a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value. A class of service parameter (and/or quality of service parameter) may be a DSCP Value for downstream or upstream traffic).
Regarding claim 5, Bevilacqua discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the first device, a first rule from a third device, wherein the first rule indicates to write the identification information into the DSCP field ([0065]: the configuration device 300 may send/provide a filter element to the network device 320. It should be noted that steps 301 and 302 may occur simultaneously or in any order, such as step 302 being performed prior to step 301. The filter element may include information/data associated with one or more factors/rules (e.g., class of service rules, quality of service rules, access control rules, etc.) for managing packets); and receiving, by the second device, a second rule from the third device, wherein the second rule indicates to allow or forbid, when the DSCP field carries the identification information, the access operation ([0032], [0054]: When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets match the authorized value, the interface 107 may send/forward the packets to the interface 112. When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets do not match the authorized value, the interface 107 may prevent (e.g., block, discard, etc.) the packets from being sent/forwarded to the interface 112.).
Regarding claim 6; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 16; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, Bevilacqua disclose the system of claim 6, wherein the first object comprises a service of a type or a name of a network area ([0028]: the defined one or more values of the class of service parameter may indicate that a packet containing the defined one or more values of the class of service parameter originated from an approved origin, and thus the packet relates to a subscribed service).
Regarding claim 13, Bevilacqua discloses a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to:
write, by a first device when a destination address of the first data packet points to a first object, identification information into a differentiated services code point (DSCP) field of a first data packet to obtain a modified first data packet ([0032]-[0033]: The content provider 102 may provide (e.g. write) tag, mark and/or associate content, such as each packet of a plurality of packets associated with content, with a class of service parameter value (and/or quality of service parameter value). A portion of each packet of the plurality of packets may be associated with and/or include (e.g., in a header) a class of service parameter (and/or quality of service parameter) of a plurality of class of service parameters. A class of service parameter (and/or quality of service parameter) may be a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value. A class of service parameter may include and/or be associated one or more network addresses (e.g., a range of IP addresses, an IPv4 source address range, an IPv6 source address range, an IPv4 destination address range, an IPv6 destination address range, etc.), wherein the first device either generates the first data packet or is a switch coupled to a second device that generates the first data packet ([0034]: The peering router 104 may tag, mark, and/or override the class of service parameter value included with a packet with a value that indicates the content sources (e.g., the content provider 102, the content server, 110, etc.) from which the packet was received. The peering router 104 may provide packets with class of service parameters that have been tagged, marked, and/or overridden to the MSO 103 to be routed to and/or provided to the premises 105);
send, by the first device, the modified first data packet; obtain, by a second device, the modified first data packet ([0034]: The peering router 104 may provide packets with class of service parameters that have been tagged, marked, and/or overridden to the MSO 103 to be routed to and/or provided to the premises 105);
wherein the second device is either a server to which the destination address points or a security device that manages the server, and wherein the server corresponds to the first object ([0036]: The MSO 103 may include a variety of servers 108-111 that may be configured to perform various functions. The MSO 103 may include the configuration server 108. The configuration server 108 may be one or more computing devices that communicate with the MSO 103 (e.g., an interface 107, etc.) for providing data and/or services); obtain, by the second device, the identification information from the DSCP field; and allow or forbid, by the second device and based on the identification information, an access operation corresponding to the first data packet ([0054]: The interface 107 may use the filter element to determine that values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in a packet destined for and/or associated with the interface 112 matches the authorized value. When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets match the authorized value, the interface 107 may send/forward the packets to the interface 112. When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets do not match the authorized value, the interface 107 may prevent (e.g., block, discard, etc.) the packets from being sent/forwarded to the interface 112).
Regarding claim 18, Bevilacqua discloses the computer program product of claim 13, wherein before writing the identification information, when executed by the one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to receive, by the first device, a first rule from a third device, and wherein the first rule indicates to write the identification information into the DSCP field ([0065]: the configuration device 300 may send/provide a filter element to the network device 320. It should be noted that steps 301 and 302 may occur simultaneously or in any order, such as step 302 being performed prior to step 301. The filter element may include information/data associated with one or more factors/rules (e.g., class of service rules, quality of service rules, access control rules, etc.) for managing packets).
Regarding claim 19, Bevilacqua discloses the computer program product of claim 18, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to receive, by the second device, a second rule from the third device, and wherein the second rule indicates to allow or forbid, when the DSCP field carries the identification information, the access operation ([0032], [0054]: When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets match the authorized value, the interface 107 may send/forward the packets to the interface 112. When values of a class of service parameter associated with and/or included in packets do not match the authorized value, the interface 107 may prevent (e.g., block, discard, etc.) the packets from being sent/forwarded to the interface 112).
Regarding claim 20; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
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 of this title, 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 2-3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevilacqua in view of Zou et al. (US 2016/0350151 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bevilacqua discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Bevilacqua does not disclose wherein writing the identification information comprises writing, by the first device, the identification information into the DSCP field using a hypervisor layer.
In an analogous art, Zou discloses wherein writing the identification information comprises writing, by the first device, the identification information into the DSCP field using a hypervisor layer ([0098]: At a high level, the VM-to-VM switch is manageable with standard attributes in hardware physical switches. The features are existent in the hardware and enabled through a software interface which is reachable over management through the network port, via USB, via software on the hypervisor. [0099]: At the Internet Protocol (IP) layer (layer 3) the switch is capable of marking (setting) Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) bits in the packet header and reading them. At the Media).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bevilacqua to comprise “wherein writing the identification information comprises writing, by the first device, the identification information into the DSCP field using a hypervisor layer” taught by Zou.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled routing network frames between VMs utilizing hypervisor switch offloading (Zou, [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Bevilacqua discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Bevilacqua does not discloses wherein writing the identification information comprises: writing, by a first instance in the first device, first sub-identification information into a first field in the DSCP field, wherein the first instance corresponds to a second object; and writing, by a hypervisor layer in the first device, second sub-identification information into a second field in the DSCP field, wherein the identification information comprises the first sub-identification information and the second sub-identification information.
In an analogous art, Zou discloses wherein writing the identification information comprises: writing, by a first instance in the first device, first sub-identification information into a first field in the DSCP field, wherein the first instance corresponds to a second object ([0094]: VM Host 3 806 may further be coupled to Frame On VLAN X 818 and/or Frame On VLAN Y 820. The destination shows an IP address and subnet mask for IP Address 10.200.0.1 with a 32 bit subnet mask. If the QoS bits indicate AF31, which are the 6 bits of the TOS field represented by DCSP are “011 010”, then the packet is directed locally to the VM); and writing, by a hypervisor layer in the first device, second sub-identification information into a second field in the DSCP field, wherein the identification information comprises the first sub-identification information and the second sub-identification information ([0094]: The direction and IP addresses as well as DSCP bits may follow any user preference as indicated by the configuration provided by the User Configuration Interface 892. [0099]: At the Internet Protocol (IP) layer (layer 3) the switch is capable of marking (setting) Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) bits in the packet header and reading them. At the Media Access Control (MAC) Layer (layer 2) the switch is capable of 802.1Q and 802.1p which is the marking of priority bits in the header).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bevilacqua to comprise “wherein writing the identification information comprises: writing, by a first instance in the first device, first sub-identification information into a first field in the DSCP field, wherein the first instance corresponds to a second object; and writing, by a hypervisor layer in the first device, second sub-identification information into a second field in the DSCP field, wherein the identification information comprises the first sub-identification information and the second sub-identification information” taught by Zou.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled routing network frames between VMs utilizing hypervisor switch offloading (Zou, [0021]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claims 8 and 15; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Bevilacqua discloses the system of claim 9.
However, Bevilacqua does not disclose wherein the instance comprises a virtual machine or a container.
In an analogous art, Zou discloses wherein the instance comprises a virtual machine or a container ([0094]: VM Host 3 806 may further be coupled to Frame On VLAN X 818 and/or Frame On VLAN Y 820. The destination shows an IP address and subnet mask for IP Address 10.200.0.1 with a 32 bit subnet mask. If the QoS bits indicate AF31, which are the 6 bits of the TOS field represented by DCSP are “011 010”, then the packet is directed locally to the VM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bevilacqua to comprise “wherein the instance comprises a virtual machine or a container” taught by Zou.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled routing network frames between VMs utilizing hypervisor switch offloading (Zou, [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Brar et al., US 2024/0106760 A1: Network Device Level Optimization for Latency Sensitive RDM Traffic.
Wang et al., US 2023/0319544 A1: Nodes in Communication network and Methods Thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights