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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a description of how more than one switch-connected nodes are connected to a single “switch port” when the switch only connects one device/node to one port according to the disclosure, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a description of how more than one switch-connected nodes are connected to a single “switch port” when the switch only connects one device/node to one port according to the disclosure, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The disclosure states:
“[0027] Each switch port 110 that has a node connected to it is indicated by the absence of an “X” across the switch port. Conversely, each switch port 110 not connected to a node is indicated by an “X” crossing the switch. Thus, switch ports 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are each connected to a corresponding node while switch ports 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 are not connected to any node.”
“[0034] FIG. 3 illustrates a new connection method 300 performed in response to a new node being connected to the switch. The illustrated method 300, which may be performed by the newly connected node, includes determining (block 302) a switch port number comprising a port number of the switch port connected to the node. An IP address is then assigned (block 304) to the node, wherein the IP address indicates the switch port number. A unicast discovery procedure, such as the procedure described above with respect to FIG. 1 is initiated (block 306) by sending unicast discovery messages to discover all nodes connected to the switch. A switch port roster, indicative of all endpoints and services connected to the switch is then distributed (block 310), again using unicast messages, to each of the nodes connected to the switch.”
All of these sections indicate and describe that each switch-connected node is connected to one port. Instead, the language of the claim seemingly claims “a switch port” having more than one node connected thereto. How the method of claim 1 occurs with just one port connecting to all the “switch-connected nodes” is critical to the to the practice of the invention but the description of such a feature remains absent from the disclosure and the claims.
Claim 9 is also rejected based on similar reasonings as above.
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 1-16 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, “…initiating a unicast discovery procedure to discover, without using multicasting messages, all nodes connected to the switch port via unicast discovery messages” … “…sending a unicast discovery message from each switch-connected node to its nearest neighbor node…” It is unclear from the claims and the disclosure, whether there the nodes/switch-connected nodes are connected to a plurality of switch ports of a switch or just one switch port. Claims are read as best understood by the examiner for purpose of examining.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected on similar basis.
Claim 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
“…wherein no two unicast discovery message are active at the same time” is not supported by the disclosure of the originally filed application. There is insufficient support as the closest section of the disclosure only supports “adjacent” node discovery without any signaling limited to a time.
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.
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) 1-3, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINDL (US 2005/0163118) in view of HO et al (US 2013/0250810)
Regarding claim 1, 9, STEINDL discloses method, comprising:
responsive to detecting a new connection between a node and a switch port in a network, performing new connection operations (STEINDL: ¶26, ¶27, ¶31, when a new device connection is detected by the program in the switch 104, a connection process is initiated; this switch port is in ), wherein the new connection operations include:
determining a switch port number comprising a port number of the switch port connected to the node (STEINDL: ¶31-33, the switch port number is determined and sent to the new node (device));
assigning an IP address to the node, wherein the IP address indicates the switch port number (STEINDL: ¶34, ¶38-39, Fig. 3, the algorithm for allocating the IP address is initiated and an IP address is assigned that is corresponding to a port number of the switch);
initiating a discovery procedure to discover, via discovery messages, all nodes connected to the switch port (STEINDL: ¶39, Fig. 3, LLDP is used to discover each neighbor of each device);
all nodes are connected to a switch (STEINDL: ¶52, ¶35, all devices are switch connected devices)
STEINDL remains silent regarding the network being a network that prohibits multicasting, the discovery procedure being without multicasting, and the discovery messages being the unicast discovery messages; and, distributing a switch port roster, indicative of all nodes connected to the switch port and their respective switch port numbers to each of the nodes connected to the switch port;
wherein unicast discover procedure includes sending a unicast discovery message from each connected node to its nearest neighbor node and wherein:
each connected node sends a maximum of one unicast discovery message to another connected node; and each connected node receives a maximum of one unicast discovery message from another switch connected node.
However, HO et al (US 2013/0250810) discloses the network being a network that prohibits multicasting (HO: ¶23, ¶27, the network topology prohibits multicast during a stage two of a discovery procedure where unicast messages are used and multicast is not used), the discovery procedure being without multicasting, and the discovery messages being the unicast discovery messages (HO: ¶20, ¶28, ¶30, ¶34, unicast discover procedure is initiated when a change in topology/new device is detected); and distributing a switch port roster, indicative of all nodes connected to the switch port and their respective switch port numbers to each of the nodes connected to the switch port (HO: ¶39, ¶34-35, distributing a list of devices/nodes reachable via/connected to the port); wherein unicast discover procedure includes sending a unicast discovery message from each connected node to its nearest neighbor node (HO: ¶35, ¶26, only one discovery query message is sent per neighbor (neighbor is directly connected device and not an indirect connected device e.g. through a bridge) in a unicast ode) and wherein:
each connected node sends a maximum of one unicast discovery message to another connected node; and each connected node receives a maximum of one unicast discovery message from another connected node (HO: ¶35, ¶26, each device sends one message and also receives only one response message from that device/node).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of STEINDL would have been motivated to use the teachings of HO as it provides a thorough port and device mapping between the connected device and minimizing signaling overhead by utilizing unicast discovery when a high number of devices are connected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of STEINDL with teachings of HO in order to improve signaling overhead minimization.
Regarding claim 2, 10, STEINDL modified by HO discloses method of claim 1, wherein determining the switch port number comprises obtaining link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) information from the switch port (STEINDL: ¶39, Fig. 3, LLDP message, indicating the port number, is received from the switch port connected to the node (device)).
Regarding claim 3, 11, STEINDL modified by HO discloses method of claim 1, wherein the unicast discovery messages are sent sequentially wherein no two unicast discovery messages are active at the same time (STEINDL: ¶39, each device discovers its neighboring device using the LLDP; HO: Fig. 3, ¶24, ¶45, unicast discovery messages are sent to each device and then from that device to its nearest neighbor node device; in at least one mode, where legacy discovery message is not sent and only topology discovery/query message is sent, there is only one unicast discovery message present/active at a time according to the signaling diagram in Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 4-8, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINDL modified by HO as applied to claim 1/10 above, further in view of COLE et al (US 2011/0258302)
Regarding claim 4, 12, STEINDL modified by HO discloses method of claim 1/10, wherein the unicast discovery procedure includes:
sending, from a first node connected to a first switch port, a discovery message to a lower adjacent switch port (HO: ¶24, unicast discovery messages are sent to each device and then from that device to its nearest neighbor node device); responsive to detecting a second node connected to the lower adjacent switch port and determining that the second node is not included in the switch port roster: adding the second node to the switch port roster (HO: ¶48, adding information of a second node when the second node is not included in the network topology (including the port list/roster));
discovery includes sending discovery message from the respective nodes (HO : ¶24, unicast discovery messages are sent to each device and then from that device to its nearest neighbor node device)
STEINDL modified by HO remains silent regarding performing discovery at the second node to a next lower adjacent switch port; and responsive to detecting no node connected to the lower adjacent switch port, performing discovery at the first node to the next lower adjacent switch port.
However, COLE et al (US 2011/0258302) discloses sending a second discovery message from the second node to a next lower adjacent switch port; and responsive to detecting no node connected to the lower adjacent switch port, sending a discovery message from the first node to the next lower adjacent switch port (COLE: ¶37, ¶40-41, discovery is based on port having a node attached to it and when it doesn’t have a node attached, the next port is selected for performing the discovery).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of STEINDL modified by HO would have been motivated to use the teachings of COLE as it provides method to efficiently perform audit of attached nodes of a switch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of STEINDL modified by HO with teachings of COLE in order to improve efficiency of network map audit/update.
Regarding claim 5, 13, STEINDL modified by HO modified by COLE discloses method of claim 4/12, wherein the unicast discovery procedure further includes: responsive to receiving a discovery message from a sending node and determining, from the switch port roster, that the sending node is a new node, restarting the unicast discovery procedure to capture the new node in the switch port roster (HO: ¶28, any change in topology (a new node) is detected, the discovery is performed again in order to capture the change).
Regarding claim 6, 14, STEINDL modified by HO modified by COLE discloses method of claim 4/12, wherein the unicast discovery procedure further includes, responsive to a particular node detecting no further switch-connected nodes: identifying the particular node as a lowest node; and sending unicast messages, indicative of the switch port roster, from the lowest node to each other node in the switch port roster (HO: ¶20, ¶24, the full network topology information is determined by each node and this includes the device being last hop device (see STEINDL Fig. 3); the devices sending topology information to each of their neighbors).
Regarding claim 7, 15, STEINDL modified by HO modified by COLE discloses method of claim 4/12, further comprising: identifying a switch-connected node connected to a highest switch port as a starting node; and periodically performing the unicast discovery process, beginning with the highest node, to refresh and redistribute the switch port roster (HO: ¶28, periodically, discovery message (topology discover message) is sent; COLE: ¶40-41, discovery is started with a first port (highest in order of discovery) and update the topology information/table).
Regarding claim 8, 16, STEINDL modified by HO modified by COLE discloses method of claim 7/15, further comprising: responsive to a switch-connected node not receiving a discovery message from a higher node during an interval exceeding a threshold duration, identifying the switch- connected node as the highest node (HO: ¶20, the full network topology information is determined by each node and this includes the device being top of the rack device (see STEINDL Fig. 3)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
584
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Applicants take a position that STEINDL modified by HO does not disclose detecting “… sending a unicast discovery message from each switch-connected node to its nearest neighbor node and wherein: each switch-connected node sends a maximum of one unicast discovery message to another switch-connected node; and each switch-connected node receives a maximum of one unicast discovery message from another switch connected node…”
However, HO et al (US 2013/0250810) discloses, in ¶35:
[0035] At block 208, the first node receives one or more responses to the topology query message. In some embodiments, upon receiving a topology query message, a P1905.1 compliant device may respond with a topology response message. In some embodiments, the P1905.1 compliant device responds to a received topology query message with a topology response message. One topology response message may be sent per topology query message. A topology response message may be sent on any port, regardless of the port on which it was received. The topology response message may contain the same transaction ID that was received in the topology query message, the sending device's P1905.1 device ID, and for each of the receiving device's ports, the MAC address and media type/subtype of the port, and a list of neighboring legacy devices and neighboring P1905.1 compliant devices reachable via the port. The list of neighboring legacy devices may include, for each neighboring legacy device, the MAC address of the neighboring device's port, and the number of seconds since traffic of any kind from the neighboring legacy device was seen. The list of neighboring P1905.1 compliant devices may include, for each P1905.1 compliant neighboring device, the neighboring device's P1905.1 device ID, and the number of seconds since traffic of any kind from the neighboring P1905.1 device was seen. As described herein, the topology response message may be unicast. The following TLVs may be included in the topology response message: a device information type TLV, zero or one legacy neighbor list TLV, and zero or one P1905.1 neighbor list TLV. Table 6 includes an example P1905.1 compliant device information type TLV, Table 7 includes example media types, Table 8 includes an example legacy neighbor list TLV, and Table 9 includes an example neighbor TLV.
[0026] A P1905.1 compliant device (e.g., a mapper unit 114 of the hybrid device 102) may construct a more complete network map by sending a topology query message or topology subscription request message to a neighboring P1905.1 compliant device to obtain topology information regarding the neighboring device's neighbors (e.g., via a topology response message or a topology notification message sent by the neighboring device in response to the topology query message or topology subscription request message). … In particular embodiments, a device is a "neighbor" if the device is reachable without being bridged by another P1905.1 compliant device. …
Based on the above sections, HO expressly discloses that each device connected to a port sends only one unicast discovery message. Also, receives a response message from only that device corresponding to the discovery message. Also, the message is sent to the closest connected device.
This would be reasonably interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art as … “sending a unicast discovery message from each switch-connected node to its nearest neighbor node and wherein: each switch-connected node sends a maximum of one unicast discovery message to another switch-connected node; and each switch-connected node receives a maximum of one unicast discovery message from another switch connected node”
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of STEINDL would have been motivated to use the teachings of HO as it provides a thorough port and device mapping between the connected device and minimizing signaling overhead by utilizing unicast discovery when a high number of devices are connected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of STEINDL with teachings of HO in order to improve signaling overhead minimization.
All arguments are based on the arguments addressed above and, therefore, are fully responded to as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Sujoy 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 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2475
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475