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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 35 USC112b rejection is not proper and that the claim simply has breadth and is not indefinite.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim) (2173.02 section I). The Applicant should amend the claims to contain at least one species, i.e. a “manner” that will allow for tending to evenly distribute traffic of the flows. Hence, the 35 USC 112b rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues “…that the cited portions of Gangawane fail to disclose or suggest the feature of “create, for a set of flows mapped to an outgoing link, a respective set of link pinning state entries mapping the respective flows to the outgoing link.””
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gangawane discloses a “request state” and includes it in a “request cookie” as header. The request states also includes execution context (e.g., states such as auditing, diagnostics, etc.). The normalized state (e.g., the attributes, the go-back URL, what is required for different flows, etc.) is also captured in the request state and placed in the request cookie. Thus, creation of a link pinning state entries for sessions (i.e. flows). Since user login thus connections to and from and thus outgoing links.
Applicant further argues that the cited paragraphs of 0219-0223 fail to disclose the required claim limitations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gangawane clearly discloses in 0221, that the request state is maintained throughout different services thus different link pinning entries for different flows. Gangawane also discloses that a normalized state (e.g., the attributes, the go-back URL, what is required for different flows, etc.) is also captured in the request state and placed in the request cookie thus flows for outgoing links.
Applicant argues “that the cited portions of Gangawane fail to disclose or suggest the feature of “retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows and deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows.””
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gangawane discloses in paragraph 0021 that “The real-time tasks are handled by a microservice in the middle tier, while the near-real-time tasks are offloaded to a message queue”, since different tasks are sent to different services/servers thus “remap a first subset of flows in the set of flows to at least one other outgoing link while a second subset of flows in the set of flows remain mapped to the outgoing link”.
Applicant argues “…that the cited portions of Gangawane fail to disclose or suggest the feature of “retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows and deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows.””
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gangawane discloses in paragraph 0223-0224 that user request data, which is part of the request state (i.e. link pinning state entries) is deleted. Since a request state (i.e. link pinning state entry) can be deleted, and while one/another request state (i.e. link pinning state entry) is active it is retained.
Thus all of the argued and claimed limitations have been met.
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear and hence the claims are indefinite. The language of the claim was given a broadest reasonable interpretation. The boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Because claims delineate the patentee’s right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. (See MPEP 2173.02).
Claims 31 recites “…link in a manner tending to evenly distribute traffic of the flows…” is not defined by the claims and the Applicant’s specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of such term “a manner tending to evenly distribute traffic”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention and thereby such term “a manner tending to evenly distribute traffic” renders the claim indefinite for that reason. For example, it is unclear as to what type/kind of “manner” that such a term is intended, since a “manner” can include different types of manners to distribute traffic evenly. Further clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180077144 A1 herein Gangawane.
Claim 21, Gangawane discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
create, for a set of flows mapped to an outgoing link, a respective set of link pinning state entries mapping the respective flows to the outgoing link (0082, 0219-0223);
remap a first subset of flows in the set of flows to at least one other outgoing link while a second subset of flows in the set of flows remain mapped to the outgoing link (0021, 0035-0038, 0082-0085); and
retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows and deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows (0021, 0035-0038, 0082-0085, 0156-0157, 0223-0224).
Claim 22, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the flows in the set of flows are mapped to the outgoing link based on stateless per-flow load balancing (0035-0038).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 23-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangawane in view of US 20140372616 A1 herein Arisoylu.
Claim 23, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane discloses bandwidth and capacity. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the set of link pinning state entries is created based on detection of a bandwidth condition associated with the outgoing link.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the set of link pinning state entries is created based on detection of a bandwidth condition associated with the outgoing link (0273-0276). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 24, Gangawane in view of Arisoylu discloses the apparatus of claim 23. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the bandwidth condition includes a bandwidth of the outgoing link reaching a bandwidth threshold.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the bandwidth condition includes a bandwidth of the outgoing link reaching a bandwidth threshold (0219). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 25, Gangawane in view of Arisoylu discloses the apparatus of claim 24. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the bandwidth threshold of the outgoing link is less than a total bandwidth capacity of the outgoing link.
Arisoylu wherein the bandwidth threshold of the outgoing link is less than a total bandwidth capacity of the outgoing link (0219). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 26, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the first subset of flows is remapped to the at least one other outgoing link based on detection of a bandwidth condition associated with the outgoing link.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the first subset of flows is remapped to the at least one other outgoing link based on detection of a bandwidth condition associated with the outgoing link (0273-0276, reducing the number of blades and synchronizing flows corresponding to the bucket in the transient state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 27, analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 24.
Claim 28, analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 25.
Claim 29, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein, to remap the first subset of flows to the at least one other outgoing link, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to:
monitor, for each flow in the set of flows based on the respective link pinning state entries associated with the respective flows, a respective bandwidth consumption of the respective flow on the outgoing link; and identify the first subset of flows and the second subset of flows based on the respective bandwidth consumptions of the respective flows on the outgoing links.
Arisoylu discloses wherein, to remap the first subset of flows to the at least one other outgoing link, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to:
monitor, for each flow in the set of flows based on the respective link pinning state entries associated with the respective flows, a respective bandwidth consumption of the respective flow on the outgoing link (0306, monitor flows in bucket to return to transient state; 0404-0405, using elephant and mice model to flows with respect to amount of elephant and mice flows as well as bandwidth consumptions); and identify the first subset of flows and the second subset of flows based on the respective bandwidth consumptions of the respective flows on the outgoing links (0404-0405, using elephant and mice model to flows with respect to amount of elephant and mice flows as well as bandwidth consumptions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 30, Gangawane in view of Arisoylu discloses the apparatus of claim 29. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the first subset of flows includes ones of the flows in the set of flows having the highest respective bandwidth consumptions on the outgoing link.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the first subset of flows includes ones of the flows in the set of flows having the highest respective bandwidth consumptions on the outgoing link (0404-0405). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 31, Gangawane in view of Arisoylu discloses the apparatus of claim 29. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the first subset of flows is remapped to the at least one other outgoing link in a manner tending to evenly distribute traffic of the flows in the set of flows across a set of outgoing links that includes the outgoing link and the at least one other outgoing link.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the first subset of flows is remapped to the at least one other outgoing link in a manner tending to evenly distribute traffic of the flows in the set of flows across a set of outgoing links that includes the outgoing link and the at least one other outgoing link (0015, 0274-0276). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 32, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein, to remap the first subset of flows to the at least one other outgoing link, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to: modify, for each flow in the first subset of flows, the respective link pinning state entry of the respective flow from mapping the respective flow to the outgoing link to mapping the respective flow to the at least one other outgoing link.
Arisoylu discloses wherein, to remap the first subset of flows to the at least one other outgoing link, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to: modify, for each flow in the first subset of flows, the respective link pinning state entry of the respective flow from mapping the respective flow to the outgoing link to mapping the respective flow to the at least one other outgoing link (0080-0082, remapping of flows to different blades). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 33, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows are retained by continuing to store the ones of the link pinning state entries as long as packets continue to be forwarded on the respective flows.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows are retained by continuing to store the ones of the link pinning state entries as long as packets continue to be forwarded on the respective flows (0080-0082, 0275). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 34, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows are deactivated by at least one of deleting the ones of the link pinning state entries or marking the ones of the link pinning state entries for deletion.
Arisoylu discloses wherein the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows are deactivated by at least one of deleting the ones of the link pinning state entries or marking the ones of the link pinning state entries for deletion (0044, 0286). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 35, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein, to retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: retain the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows by making the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows permanent based on a determination that packets are forwarded on the respective flows in the first subset of flows.
Arisoylu discloses wherein, to retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: retain the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows by making the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows permanent based on a determination that packets are forwarded on the respective flows in the first subset of flows (0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 36, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may note explicitly disclose wherein, to deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: deactivate the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows in response to the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows being updated to reflect the remapping of the respective flows in the second subset of flows from the outgoing link to the at least one other outgoing link.
Arisoylu discloses wherein, to deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: deactivate the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows in response to the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows being updated to reflect the remapping of the respective flows in the second subset of flows from the outgoing link to the at least one other outgoing link (0097-0098). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 37, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein, to retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: change the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows from being temporary entries to being permanent entries.
Arisoylu discloses wherein, to retain ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: change the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the first subset of flows from being temporary entries to being permanent entries (0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 38, Gangawane discloses the apparatus of claim 21. Gangawane may not explicitly disclose wherein, to deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: change the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows from being temporary entries to being deactivated entries.
Arisoylu discloses wherein, to deactivate ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: change the ones of the link pinning state entries associated with respective flows in the second subset of flows from being temporary entries to being deactivated entries (0044, 0164). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangawane to include considering bandwidth as taught by Arisoylu so as to introduce advantages such as scalability, increased performance, and/or increased availability (0007).
Claim 40, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claims 21, 29 and 37.
Claim 41, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 21, 29 and 37.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220091874 A1 - The present disclosure provides a framework (120) and a method of optimizing load balancing in a cluster by effectively migrating docker containers which leverages the container runtime real-time metrics of the computing host machine in the virtual environment to decide the optimal container to node placement in the cluster. The present disclosure uses fly container migration in which migrating a container involves check-pointing it on the host node and restoring it on the target node, it also enables synchronizing the container file system, by leveraging the use of private container registry. Load balancing of the instant disclosure is performed by optimized allocation of nodes in the applications thereby re-balancing the cluster and further the framework is scalable to large number of nodes and it leverages the power of graphical processing units (GPU) for making faster scheduling decisions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571) 272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419