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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 09/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 21 regarding connections configurable as interconnect connections and local switch connections. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Hasani teach, “switches 115a-e each include corresponding network ports 120 and backplane ports 125a-e”, para. 17, Fig. 1A; for further clarification, Hasani disclose, “For example, in FIG. 1A, the removable chassis 105 can be placed, inserted, arranged, coupled, set up, etc. such that its ports 130a-e are coupled with the backplane ports 125a-e of the switches 115a-e of the rack 110… Later, the topology of the switch network using the switches 115a-e might be changed to account for changes in data traffic within the data center...”, see para. 23. Examiner notes that the applicant mentions that the “switches 115a-e each include corresponding network ports 120 and backplane ports 125a-e” are just physical connections that can’t be changed. The Examiner disagrees since Hasani clearly disclose there is no specific definition on the claimed subject matter as connections configurable, that makes a detailed distinction as how they are being configured. Hasani clearly discloses configuring and setting up the connections in the rack but also disclose that the data traffic can be directed within the data center based on the topology and the changes of topology. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Hasani still meet the scope of the limitations.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasani et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190045279).
Regarding claim 21 Hasani disclose, a Clos switching system para. 3, “a Clos network includes coupling switches in a multi-stage hierarchy” comprising:
a backplane including backplane lanes para. 8, Fig. 2, “each of the backplane ports 125b-e of switches 115b-e, respectively, can be coupled with the corresponding ports 130b-e”; and
at least two dynamic fabric devices para. 16, Fig. 1A, “a rack 110 housing switches 115a-e”, each of the at least two dynamic fabric devices including connections configurable as interconnect connections and local switch connections para. 17, Fig. 1A, “switches 115a-e each include corresponding network ports 120 and backplane ports 125a-e”; and
wherein, for each of the local switch connections read as: “network ports 120” of each of the at least two dynamic fabric devices read as: “switches 115a-e”, each local switch connection is connected through one of the backplane lanes to one of the interconnect connections of another one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices para. 17-18, Fig. 1A, “then the switches 115a and 115e can have their backplane ports 125a and 125e, respectively, coupled together via interconnect… For example, the backplane port 125a of switch 115a can be coupled with port 130a of the removable chassis 105. Likewise, each of the backplane ports 125b-e of switches 115b-e, respectively, can be coupled with the corresponding ports 130b-e”.
Regarding claim 22 Hasani disclose, wherein: the system is configurable to create a communication path para. 8, Fig. 2, “each of the backplane ports 125b-e of switches 115b-e, respectively, can be coupled with the corresponding ports 130b-e”:
from a network connection of a first one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices to a local switch connection of the first one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices para. 18, Fig. 1A, “the backplane port 125a of switch 115a can be coupled with port 130a of the removable chassis 105”, where the connections of local port 120 are interconnected to the backplane with port 125a, respectively;
from the local switch connection of the first one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices to an interconnect connection of a second one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices para. 18, Fig. 1A, “if switch 115a is to be coupled with switch 115e, then an interconnect 135 from port 130a to port 130e of the removable chassis 105 can be made by providing a cable such as an optical fiber or copper cabling attached to ports 130a and 130e, thereby coupling the backplane port 125a with the backplane port 125e of switches 115a and 115e, respectively.”; and
from the interconnect connection of the second one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices to a network connection of the second one of the at least two dynamic fabric devices para. 18, Fig. 1A, “the backplane port 125a of switch 115a can be coupled with port 130a of the removable chassis 105”, The example is explained with the switch 115a, but it is also applicable to switch 115e (second dynamic fabric device), where the connections of local port 120 are interconnected to the backplane with port 125e, respectively.
Claim 29 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 29 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 30 the limitations of claim 30 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 22.
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.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasani et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190045279) in view of Doan et al. (U.S. Pat. 10902177).
Regarding claim 23 Hasani does not specifically disclose, further comprising:
a controller configurable to read as: “processor 106”, in response to addition or activation, of a dynamic fabric device to, or in, the at least two dynamic fabric devices, reconfigure the connections of the at least two dynamic fabric devices to: However, Doan teach, “adding additional switches to increase the number of programmable integrated circuits”, see col. 3, lines 37-39. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Doan further teach, increase a number of the interconnect connections for each of the at least two dynamic fabric devices col. 3, lines 35-39, “multiple reconfigurable switches may be connected together in the disclosed system, so that a prototyping system may be easily expanded by adding additional switches to increase the number of programmable integrated circuits that may be connected in the system”; and
decrease a number of the local switch connections for each of the at least two dynamic fabric devices col. 4, lines 41-43, “processor 106 may send instructions to switch 110 to remove the interconnection path between programmable integrated circuits 104-1A”.
Hasani and Doan are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doan in the system of Hasani so the system may transfer part of the network fabric load to the newly registered cards, to improve the queuing and prioritization of packet traffic that runs ATM packet switching. The motivation for doing so would have been to balance the amount of connections in the network fabric and provide an actual backup path for the current working connections.
Regarding claim 24 Hasani does not specifically disclose, wherein: each of the interconnect connections is formed using a re-timer. However, Doan teach, “Rx lanes of retimer crosspoint switches 312 are connected to crosspoint switches 202 so that retimer crosspoint switches 312 may receive data from crosspoint switches 202”, see col. 7, lines 49-52.
Hasani and Doan are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doan in the system of Hasani to allow the system to adapt to new configurations and changes of the network topology. The motivation for doing so would have to maintain the scalability of the system.
Regarding claim 26 Hasani does not specifically disclose wherein:
the system further includes: a signal backplane device, the signal backplane device connected to the at least two dynamic fabric devices and configured to implement the backplane para. 17, “the backplane ports 125a-e of switches 115a-e can be coupled together via the removable chassis 105 implementing a topology for a switch network”.
Hasani does not specifically disclose, a control backplane device connected to the at least two dynamic fabric devices and at least one control device. However, Doan teach, “Processor 106 may be operably coupled to switch 110 to send instructions for routing interconnection paths to switch 110”, see col. 4, lines 18-20.
Doan further teach, the control backplane device configured to enable communication between the at least one control device and each of the at least two dynamic fabric devices col. 4, lines 34-37, “Processor 106 may update the interconnection paths between programmable integrated circuits 104 by sending updated instructions that update the routing of interconnection paths between programmable integrated circuits 104”.
Hasani and Doan are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xu are in the system of Hasani and Doan to allow the system to adapt to new configurations and changes of the network topology. The motivation for doing so would have to maintain the scalability of the system and improve the managing of the network by interconnecting the fabric devices.
Regarding claim 27 Hasani does not specifically disclose, wherein: the at least one control device is configured to:
receive an automatic or manual indication of insertion or extraction of a new dynamic fabric device into the system col. 4, lines 38-40, “processor 106 may send instructions to switch 110 to route an interconnection path between programmable integrated circuits 104-1A and 104-2A”; and
provide configuration instructions to the at least two dynamic fabric devices in response to the automatic or manual indication col. 4, lines 20-21, “Switch 110 may receive the instructions from processor 106 and may configure itself to route interconnection paths according to the instructions”.
Hasani and Doan are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doan in the system of Hasani and to allow the system to monitor the network devices to notify any failures and produce alternative solutions to the failure. The motivation for doing so would have to minimize the network downtime to a minimum possible.
Regarding claim 31 Hasani does not specifically disclose, wherein: configuring the local switch connections of the first dynamic fabric device comprises: detecting, by a local switch of the first dynamic fabric device, network interface devices in the at least one second dynamic fabric device through the backplane lanes. However, Doan teach, “Switch routing module 208 may execute to receive an indication of connections between communications transceivers, and may, in response, execute to program crosspoint switches 202 to route a plurality of interconnection paths between communications transceivers based at least in part on the indication of connections between communications transceivers”, see col. 6, lines 9-15.
Hasani and Doan are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doan in the system of Hasani to allow the system to monitor the network devices to detect and notify any failures and produce alternative solutions to the failure. The motivation for doing so would have to minimize the network downtime to a minimum possible.
Regarding claim 32 the limitations of claim 32 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 23.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasani et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190045279) in view of Loehr et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140177452).
Regarding claim 25 Hasani does not specifically disclose, wherein:
each of the at least two dynamic fabric devices further includes a cell-based self-routing fabric element. However, Loehr teach, “a switch fabric SF. Switch fabric SF is a cell based, self-routing switch fabric”, see para. 32, and at least one of”: a fabric interface, a traffic manager para. 32, “A control system CS contains a fabric manager for configuring crossconnections through the network node”, or a packet processor.
Hasani and Loehr are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Loehr in the system of Hasani to be able to increase the flexibility and scalability of the network to handle high bandwidth traffic. The motivation for doing so would have to improve the management of the traffic through the network
Claim(s) 28, 33-36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasani et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190045279) in view of Doan et al. (U.S. Pat. 10902177), further in view of Satyarthi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200059712).
Regarding claim 28 Hasani disclose, wherein:
the at least two dynamic fabric devices include a first dynamic fabric device and a second dynamic fabric device para. 16, Fig. 1A, “a rack 110 housing switches 115a-e”;
at least one of the first dynamic fabric device or the second dynamic fabric device read as: “switches 115a-e”
Hasani and Doan does not specifically disclose, is configured to provide an automatic failure indication concerning the second dynamic fabric device to the at least one control device; and the at least one control device is configured to: receive the automatic failure indication. However, Satyarthi teach, “when a failure happens in the transport network 14, the WSS controller 84 through a received optical control loop messaging (via OSC or some-other mechanism of flow of messaging information) identifies that there is a failure”, see para. 117. Satyarthi further disclose, provide configuration instructions to the first dynamic fabric device to: increase a number of interconnect connections of the first dynamic fabric device para. 7, “if a working connection fails, the headend node or tailend node may select a protecting connection for passing data within the network. The set up and activation of the protecting connections may be referred to as restoration or protection”; and decrease a number of the local switch connections of the first dynamic fabric device, “when there is a failure upstream of the node 10, to avoid leakage of noise and causing abnormal behavior downstream of the node 10, the entire connection through the optical fabric in the optical switch 22 is torn-down”, see para. 96.
Hasani, Doan and Satyarthi are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Satyarthi in the system of Hasani and Doan to allow the system to monitor the network devices to detect and notify any failures and produce alternative solutions to the failure. The motivation for doing so would have to minimize the network downtime to a minimum possible.
Regarding claims 33 and 39 the limitations of claims 33 and 39 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 28.
Regarding claim 34 Hasani and Doan does not specifically disclose, wherein: the notification is received from the one of the at least one second dynamic fabric device. However, Satyarthi teach, “Based on the consolidation, a final deduced signaling indication is determined and sent downstream through the Optical Supervisory Channel”, see para. 15.
Hasani, Doan and Satyarthi are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Satyarthi in the system of Hasani and Doan to allow the system to monitor the network devices to detect and notify any failures and produce alternative solutions to the failure. The motivation for doing so would have to minimize the network downtime to a minimum possible.
Regarding claim 35 Hasani and Doan does not specifically disclose, wherein: the notification is received from the first dynamic fabric device. However, Satyarthi teach, “Based on the consolidation, a final deduced signaling indication is determined and sent upstream through the Optical Supervisory Channel”, see para. 15.
Hasani, Doan and Satyarthi are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Satyarthi in the system of Hasani and Doan to allow the system to monitor the network devices to detect and notify any failures and produce alternative solutions to the failure. The motivation for doing so would have to minimize the network downtime to a minimum possible.
Regarding claim 39 the limitations of claim 39 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 33.
Regarding claim 40 Hasani and Doan does not specifically disclose, wherein: the notification is received from the one of the at least one second dynamic fabric device, or the first dynamic fabric device. However, Satyarthi teach, “Based on the consolidation, a final deduced signaling indication is determined and sent downstream/upstream through the Optical Supervisory Channel”, see para. 15.
Hasani, Doan and Satyarthi are analogous because they pertain to the field of network data communication and, more specifically, to switching fabric architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Satyarthi in the system of Hasani and Doan to allow the system to monitor the network devices to detect and notify any failures and produce alternative solutions to the failure. The motivation for doing so would have to minimize the network downtime to a minimum possible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471