DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The amendment filed 12/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending
in the application. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 were amended and no new claims were added and no claims were cancelled.
Continued Examination (RCE)
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
09/02/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
• Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
• Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
• obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Barry et al. (US-20220006719-A1), hereinafter “Barry” in view of Malhotra et al. (WO-2020041742-A1) hereinafter “Malhotra”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Barry discloses, ‘An information-handling-system-implemented method for controlling traffic, the method comprising:’, (Information system using the network [1979], routing between nodes, a forwarding tree [0006]; method for setting up forwarding table in a switches node receive from universally specified affinity topology (USAT) [0010] Fig. 1 shows the plurality of physical and logical network, a fabric network the nodes 100 are interconnected via their network switches includes controller; inter-network and intra-network traffic between the network [0048]; allow capacity based on the network traffic [0043]; flow requirements of Quality of service and bandwidth [0064]),
Barry discloses, ‘given a network topology comprising a virtual link trunking (VLT)/link aggregation group (VLT/LAG) that comprises an internode link (INL) between a primary VLT/LAG peer node and a secondary VLT/LAG peer node receiving from the secondary VLT/LAG peer node to the primary VLT/LAG peer node a first control message that comprises timing information related to a configuration time period of the secondary VLT/LAG peer node during which the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is not yet configured to handle one or more types of traffic’,
The disclosure, Fig. 1 shows network nodes 100 each optical network A, B and C optical nodes, that are inter-connected via their network switches; that is inter-node link/connections (INL); further these physical or logical network form the aggregation as link aggregation group (LAG) as shown in Fig. 21 the ingress node A, B, C connected E1, E2, and E3 with multi-chassis link aggregation group (MLAG) fabric network graph and to the virtual tunnel endpoint (VTEP); and Fig.22 shows the validity rule in fabric graph part includes virtual link status, e.g., virtual link E1→Virtual_node_MLAG1 [1681];
Network topology provide control and provisioning computing resources; provides universally specified affinity topology (USAT) part specific to the switching node, junction nodes [0041]; Fig 6A is a diagram of a network topology; Fig. 1 is a plurality of physical or logical network [0041]; Fig. 1, the nodes 100 are interconnected via their network switches; USAT is a group of flows or (“glows”), and a graph of fabric network or fabric graph (FG) [0067]; Fig. 6 to 10 a network topology and network tree diagram;
[0010], USAT part specific to switch nodes includes glow and FG list (FGL); glow describes flow of network traffic and role instructions for switches node; Each FGP describes at least one role and a validity role, a portion of network topology relevant to switch node; Fig. 2 shows a plurality of switch nodes;
The network topology further can be defined as the network graph, N, is multigraph with N vertices v1, v2, . . . ,VN, with one vertex representing one network element, and 2E directed arcs a1, a2, . . . a2E [1801];
A fabric graph FGs can be combined into a fabric graph list (FGL) which consists of a primary fabric graph and, optionally, one or more back-up (as secondary) fabric graphs. A FG segmented into fabric graph parts (FGPs) according to portion of FG association of nodes. First FGP is a primary FGP if operational/valid and second FGP is a back-up/secondary if first is non-operational [0072]; a primary FGP can have source, transit and root (destination-node) as Fig. 5 and be switch node 100 (Fig. 2) and while back-up/secondary FGP can form another switch node as secondary node 100 (Fig. 2);
“[0081] The FGPs are ordered into lists for the two USATs. FGPL1SI specifies that FGPL1SI is to be used as the primary with FGP2 SI as the backup while FGPL2S1 specifies that FGP2SI is the primary and FGP1 SI is the backup .”
Barry further discloses, receiving from the secondary node to the primary node a first control message that comprises timing information,
[0051] In Fig. 1 illustrates peering optical nodes 100 includes config-state-topology autonomously created/managed by the switches and affinity topology.
[0071] FG maintains the network status, validity rule (ingress/egress) to test status e.g., time of day, time-to-line, link status; FGP can be primary FGP and also back-up/secondary [0072-0073]; and USAT ={GlowPart} : {FGP}, Fig. 7A.
And, the status message, Fig. 15 illustrates to update glows, switch node receive update from central controller or a neighbor switch; that is identical to receive from the secondary to the primary a first control message. In addition, identify or update glow currently active from the status change. And, USAT table creates and deletes when inactive [0114-0115].
In Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 includes peering switch nodes 100 includes 106 perform pre-processing periodically and based on the network status [0092-0095].
Fig. 16, switch nodes include Glow management system (GMS) receive USAT signaling (e.g., network updates from neighbor switch node) and/or status synch message (e.g., requests from neighboring switch nodes to synchronize network status information) [0117].
So, this is identical to first control message or control information uses sync and status message [0114-0117] include time stamp [0125]; has the timing information [0125]; And, status message can confirm whether ready to take the traffic.
Services provide status information signaling between the nodes that is a control information/message [0131] see Fig. 1 and 2; And, receive the control message directly received at in-port and directly connected to out-port [0132-0133] Fig. 18. A glow contain instructions for at least an ingress node, an egress node and a transit primary/back-up path with more than two nodes [0364]. And, glow attribute L1/L2 validation for the ports/links peering [0373]. As discussed above the network topology uses the universally specified affinity topology includes fabric graph (FG), and FG part is a FG and FG list (FGL); Fig. 10 is a diagram of network trees shows the FG1, FG2, FG3 and FGL1 = (FG1, FG2) and USAT1 = {glow}:(FG1); Affinity topology described in the disclosure build topology graph of VLAN (segmented [1517] network in the relevant art/network tech) and network aggregation that can be extensible VLAN (VxLAN) shown in Fig. 21, and further can support multiple domains [0291] and yet compartmentalized network (in the relevant skill of art/tech as controlled and manageable network flow by router/switch [0051] and user level access management/user configurations [0288] and user service request [0307]);
[0125], USAT maintains a table of entries include the request, the glow status, and entry alarms and other data, such as a glow identifier and/or a timestamp. Upon any change to a USAT Table, e.g. the creation of a new entry, the deletion of an entry, the change in status of an entry, or a new alarm, the table update the associated chip hardware tables changing the routing of one or more flows through the node.
Regarding configuration timing to identify secondary node not yet configured ,
Status synch message or status information and Disclosure include peering topology real-time L2 network [0392]. And, GMS uses real-time operation [0443]. FGPL periodically updates based on the network status [0109]. Fig. 16 includes: is FG outport NULL [Wingdings font/0xE0] validate is NULL mode block.
FIG. 14 shows a glow which has been specified to be active at the time of initialization. Initialization might occur right after the glow has been installed at the switch node. Alternatively, a glow could be specified to be inactive at the time of installation [0108]. Verify/update flow and update glow status on/off during initialization. and status sync and update granted connections. FIG. 13 is a logic flow diagram that illustrates the operation of another method for updating a switching node. Similar to the diagram in FIG. 12, this diagram shows that the FGMS of a node may update the TMS of the node based on network events, for example, in order to reroute messages due to a link going down or becoming available [0101-0102].
In a further embodiment, the switch node may generate/update lists of affected FGPLs at various times, e.g., periodically, during times when there is low processor demand, and/or as USATs are assigned or discontinued. This allows the switch node to maintain the list of affected FGPLs for quick access. Alternatively, the switch node may generate the list of affected FGPLs on demand using a reverse lookup of the elements in the various validity rules [0105]
As recited in first Claim element, network topology includes LAG with internode link between primary and secondary and further uses timing configured to have synch by identifying primary to initiate data traffic to secondary, the disclosure provides useful technique uses USAT framework to have best possible resource utilization based on timing and status sync. In fact, disclosure provide hierarchical USAT network topology uses as aggregation layer LAG both primary and secondary/backup peering LAG. Useful features of the framework given [0140-0167] that equally perform claim recitation: 1) resource utilization/sharing fitting algorithm 2) L1, L2, L3 multi-layer services L1/L2 low-latency 3) Fitting uses common framework and communicate to services to the nodes 4) nodes uses framework as a common but flexible, backup mechanism with resiliency 5) security and visibility service 6) USAT universal global data structure internal, external and mixed flavors 7) tunnel creation in VLAN uses L2VPN and VTEP traffic. Status synchronization and granted connection uses timestamp. Disclosure uses fitting creates FGs to primary and secondary/back-up switching topologies, divides FGs, combines FGPs into FGPLs then consolidates/optimize, fitting distributes FGPs and FGPSs to the nodes, install them for real-time operation [0777-0786]. Dynamic FGPs have some in-ports and out-ports determined by USAT coordination. A dynamic port is set by communication with a USAT neighbor and thus require inter-node USAT signaling [891]. A special node/FGP have placeholders to indicate a node primary or backup. FGPL uses real time status and selection [0880-0882], [0896]. USAT validity rule network status, node status, link status and port status as part of flow management [0907-0915];
And, discloses, ‘VLT/LAG peer node at the primary VLT/LAG peer node a second control message that indicates whether the secondary VLT/LAG peer node comprises at least one VLT/LAG link that is operationally down’;
As per disclosure [0071], FG is a path through the network and keep the current network status and link status information and link down; [0072], the primary FGP communicates with secondary to maintain the link status as per the validity rule; FG management maintains the current network status periodically depending on the nodes roles: source, ingress, egress, transit and destination; and depend on the node’ role and fabric port determine active FGP [abstract], [0099], [0109]; further see the node or link operational status and the access port status active FGP and FGP turn if invalid to choose new FGP [0907 to 0913];
Fig. 16, the switch node's GMS may receive USAT signaling (e.g., network updates from neighboring switch nodes) and/or status synch messages (e.g., requests from neighboring switch nodes to synchronize network status information) from GMS. TMS can provide alarm back to GMS [0117].
GMS sends status updates to TMS and TMS can receive outport change from FGMS. Each GMS request checked if NULL for the glow or invalid and is blocked. Notified to use new outport. And, Status synch update send to TMS. And, TMS determine table entry updates [0118-0119].
Table entry GMS: request+ glow status + alarms + glow identifier and timestamp [0125, 0131] and Fig. 17A/17B [0131].
Fig. 7A shows the network traffic flow as primary as FG1 and FG2 as backup; And, validity rule to egress and to specific port or outport is NULL to use new outport, Fig. 16. As this also applicable to neighbor switch [0117].
LAG links is identified to be operational defined by network status variable. An arc between vertices represented as simplex communication between two ethernet switches that is a LAG link and associated network element are also identified whether operational. Further, identify congestion and above threshold while the LAG links constituent with 2 of its 3 constituent link operational [1800-1804]. Link status [0071].
And, identical to the second control message indicating that the secondary node comprises at least one LAG link that is operationally down,
Fig. 12 is a logic flow diagram illustrates the operation of updating switching node shows how the FG management update the link status go up/down [0101];
See the node and link status from the network status information receive and uses validity rule the node, link status up/down from fabric link both L1/L2 and access port status information; if find invalid FGP then add new FGP secondary as active [0908]; The disclosure provides, USAT definitions specific and relevant to switch nodes to perform FGP based on the validity rule; flow of network traffic, glow as part of FGP and role instructions for the switching node when handling one flow [0010];
The disclosure further provide glow management [0364] system specific instructions for ingress, egress, transit and if this a primary or back-up/secondary, add /drop nodes, routing instructions and can vary role to role; glow attribute describe whether flow should block validation rules for port and link peering [0373], [0910]; Fig. 7B shows FGPL flow FGP1 T4 and FGP2 T4 are identical simplified USAT [0084]; As disclosed USAT as part of validity and to identify network status operationally down and port status [0907-0915],
Therefore, discloses a port status operationally down and also specifically identify there is outport NULL and NULL mode block, Fig. 16. In addition, Fig. 2 shows both the primary and the secondary node connected to at least one Host by an access port [0049].
doesn’t explicitly disclose ‘at least one orphan port’,
Malhotra in the same field of endeavor discloses, switched virtual interface (SVI) peering between a first and a second switch as shown in Fig. 2; configured with a common Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVP) Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) representing the link aggregation (LAG) uses edge computing segment traffic uses provider edge and customer edge in EVPN; Network can avoid flooding and network address resolution protocol (ARP) mechanism [0068, 0078]; a network with a first hop gateway redundancy between the first switch and the second switch that is implementing a sync of address resolution protocol (ARP) tables and further steady state East-West and North-South flow, Fig. 4 to 6; Use ARP to an orphan Ethernet segment identifier (ESI) host to handle traffic broadcast domain uses switch virtual interface (SVI) between first and second switches such primary and backup/peer [0083-0084]; Fig. 8 and 9 include diagram of a network perform repair procedure.
Barry discloses, FGMS uses validity rule to determine outport is busy or being used by control channel and avoid forming loops in the network as long as the validity rule of the FGP are appropriately selected [0099]. Fitting creates the graphs to avoid loops in the network [0279]. In addition, Fig. 11 includes Disclosure claim 31, “a plurality of switching nodes form a network and each switching node in the network distributedly performs local topology validation/invalidation and collectively form a loop-free network topology in response to the network update.” Therefore, disclosure Barry addresses to maintain the operational status of the network and in Fig. 11 illustrates a method of USAT setting and the process of user interface affinity model, flow requirement and fitting preprocessing, routing and resource allocation minimally disruptive Fit. In addition, Fig. 16, illustrates GMS uses USAT signaling status synch, status, alarm and outport changes to use new outport [0117-0019]. Disclosure distinctly address port level configuration and control instructions as part of L2/L3 routing for the switch nodes [0054]. And, supported by the central controller to communicate a plurality of switch nodes interconnect to the switch nodes implemented VLAN procedures.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the disclosure of Barry with
that of Malhotra and come up with the claim invention,
And further to combine and disclose ‘or both’ conditions.
Barry provide motivation to avoid congestion H04L47/125 maintain operational status as part of network-traffic-engineering. This would be obvious to someone skill in the art modify and explicitly use "orphan-port" to show operation status to specific port when perform the status synchronization, Barry [0121] in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17. And, Malhotra configured the first primary and the second secondary node to sync the peering [0115]. Disclosure includes the motive to avoid congestion in the network.
Disclosure of Barry not only identify the port operationally down status temporarily rather uses mitigation strategy and restoration. Includes parameters within framework of USAT and identify precedence of protection mechanism BUM traffic within a flow, backup and fast restoration. This enhance capacity of high speed means the data rate of the service is larger than the fabric rate, with inverse multiplexing of some form. Mechanism to manage flows in SDN network by USAT and presented and recommended high level link aggregation to facilitate redundant system to have link aggregation with redundancy to better efficient in scalable and resilient networks. Also, perform granular level glows to manage flows.
In contrast someone would recognize, disclosure of Malhotra that illustrates very granular level demonstration of network scenario comprises first and second switches. Use ARP to an orphan Ethernet segment identifier (ESI) host to handle traffic broadcast domain uses switch virtual interface (SVI) between first and second switches such primary and backup/peer;
Since disclosure of Barry uses BUM traffic to manage glows and flows in Ethernet switches. Someone would recognize and motivated to identify requirement then include ARP to an orphan EST that can efficiently manage/route BUM traffic between peer links and approach of redundant first HOP. This would enhance theapplication level program performance host application within a network control and provision computing network resources managed by central controller associated with fitting engine provide appropriate network configurations disclosed by Barry [0041-0044].
Regarding claim element, ‘or the secondary VLT/LAG peer node comprises no VLT/LAG links that are operationally down and no orphan ports;’
Disclosure of Barry, identification LAG link status operationally down, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 flow diagram receive the glow update and identify whether the glow is active. Fig. 16 includes GMS status identification: is glow ON, is FG outport NULL and is NULL mode “Block”? And, Fig. 17, status request and TMS update= request + glow status + alarm + identifier+ timestamp. And, the glow attribute L1/L2 validation for the ports/links peering [0373].
Therefore, disclosure also identify the port status in addition the link status and discloses, ‘or the secondary VLT/LAG peer node comprises no VLT/LAG links that are operationally down and’,
Yet didn’t disclose and further to include the disclosure of Malhotra, ‘no orphan port’ in the secondary node and link in steady flow (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 includes steady state flow no link down and no orphan port).
Motive to include would be identical as disclosed above.
Barry also discloses, ‘in response to the second control message indicating that the secondary VLT/LAG peer node comprise at least one VLT/LAG link that is operationally down’, and ‘performing steps comprising: determining whether a rule that instructs the primary VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more types of traffic to the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is active;
and in response to the rule being active; deactivating the rule;’
validation rule [0010] and link status [0101, 0114-119] includes active, primary FGP and also back-up/secondary [0072-0073] and Fig. 12 disclosed above; flow filters are used and can be refined definition of flows to switching node [0702 to 0706]; And, Fig. 16 identification FG outport “NULL” and “NULL mode Block” while GMS perform status synch and notify a device to use new outport [0118]. In Fig. 7 includes specific roles and the validity-rule in primary/back-up to allow/block the traffic [0079-0081].
And didn’t disclose ‘at least one orphan port’ (disclosed above Malhotra)
Motive would be identical to disclose above. Further, Barry discloses, as part of Software defined networking (SDN) procedures managing flows used for USAT. The “GLOW” composite data structure defined to maintain flow, link selection from a set of fabric graph and periodically update link and the network status [2018]. This are best practices of data center networks optical network to allocate bandwidth efficiently control and provision computing resources includes combined affinity-network topology optical fabric and ethernet computing resources.
Regarding last claim element, ‘and in response to the second control message indicating the secondary VLT/LAG peer node comprises no VLT/LAG links that are operationally down and no orphan ports, performing steps comprising: determining whether the rule that instructs the primary node to not send one or more types of traffic to the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is active; and in response to the rule not being active, activating the rule.’
And further from the disclosure of Barry, ‘and in response to the second control message indicating the secondary VLT/LAG peer node comprises no LAG links that are operationally down’ (disclosed above links status of LAG [0907 to 0913]),
To the disclosure of Malhotra, ‘and no orphan ports’ (disclosed above and an ARP reply is generated from an orphan ESI host. The ARP reply perform using messaging between the primary/secondary switches [0065].),
Barry discloses, ‘performing steps comprising: determining whether the rule that instructs the primary VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more types of traffic to the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is active; and in response to the rule not being active, activating the rule.’ (In Fig. 12 validation for FGP, primary and back-up [0072-0073] and link status up/down and validity FGP Fig. 13 and FG management updated; Fig. 14 is a logical flow diagram of glow status for the flows are verified as valid before indicating that the glow is ON and look up active FGP; USAT part is a local participant network [0293]; And, comprises FGP defines the interface fitting and nodes; Not all nodes participates in all USATs but each node knows about the USAT it participates (as primary or back-up (secondary)) and send the relevant (USAT parts that a node participating) [0294]; The glow attributes L1/L2 validation on ports/links peering [0373].
As disclosed above, the glow contain instructions for at least an egress node, if there is any primary or back-up path with more than two nodes. If intermediate add/drop is to be used, then the glow should contain instructions for an add/drop node as well. These instructions can be FWD table instructions, TCAM instructions, Routing instructions, or their respective generalizations, and can vary from role to role.
The glow status active includes function/process to identify the ingress/egress status active [0676, 0678]
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine the disclosure of Barry with
that of Malhotra and come up with the claim invention,
with a motivation to provide network flow-validation-rule and well-defined procedure for a universally specified affinity topology (USAT) includes primary and secondary with switch nodes that builds the VLAN/VxLAN in a multiple domain network and able to direct network traffic to the right network fabric as part of link aggregation procedure for flow management, efficient bandwidth and optimization.
As UAT defines framework, disclosed by Barry:
Using the construction of very modular roles that can be mixed and matched to create a variety of services. USATs Universal, in order to streamline Fitting and node development, as well as unify Fitting resource sharing algorithms:
Extensible, for future services and technologies; and
Scalable.
high level link aggregation and redundant system to have link aggregation encompasses ethernet switch such as virtual switch/VTEP with redundancy to better efficient in scalable and resilient networks. And, granular level glows and manage flows BUM traffic.
Someone would recognize and reasonably motivated to use SVI virtual switch interface and orphan ESI, and in network computing first hop gateway redundancy provides a solution for best path redundancy route peer link between primary and secondary as disclosed by Malhotra [0022-0023].
Regarding Claim 2,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 1’ (disclosed above), ‘wherein the one or more types of traffic comprises broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) data traffic.’ (FIG. 11 is a logic flow diagram that illustrates the operation of a method for setting up USATs and provide only relevant information to nodes; determine a tree - spanning unicast and/or Broadcast, Unknown, Multicast (BUM) topology as a default communication tree [0091, 1671], Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 3,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 2’ (disclosed above)’, ‘wherein the rule that instructs the primary VLT/LAG peer node to not send the BUM data traffic to the secondary VLT/LAG peer node further’ (disclosed above claim 2 and Barry discloses, ACL [0717]. Switch topology specification includes a FG: validity rule and roles for each node [0785]. Validity rule and identify valid. Uses appropriate routing without form loops/loop free operation [0080-0082]. And, the switch node receive USAT signaling updates from near adjacent nodes as status synch and based on “NULL mode” flow can be temporarily block [0117-0118]. As shown in Fig. 5, a node can be assigned with a role),
Barry discloses, ‘comprises also not sending identified control data.’ (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, controller process the message between the between inter-network and intra-network traffic [0047] and switch nodes is the controller, connect the fitting engine as abstraction layer and switch node that forms the FGP, and the USAT part specific to switch node with validity rule and definition [0010]; the USAT affinity topology, uses hierarchical network both tier host-> switch-> Fitting Engine -> Controller and further, network layered approach; someone in the relevant skill of art would appreciate from Fig. 1 and 2, how configuration and controlled information is maintained from top-down or bottom-up such as physical fiber layer, a fabric to ethernet, routing layer and goes to the link aggregation group, USAT to multiple VLAN/VxLAN abstraction layer connecting multiple domain;
For instance, to block control information or signal on some node x if a path P was operational [0813]. the node's roles in the FG on each FGP, e.g. ingress, egress, transit, so that the node knows which role instructions to implement for each glow assigned to it, and if the node is on the primary path or a standby path [0807]; uses access control list (ACL) to block a flow [0717]; Fig. 16 includes “NULL mode” and “Block”.
Fig. 15 shows the flow chart that identify the glow of FGP is active and the current role of the node that can egress and perform the glow-verifications; upon verification may not send the traffic to back-up flow;
In FIG. 21. A VPN BUM USAT maps the BUM traffic in VPN 100 to a tunnel to node B; If tunnels are down, affected entries in the residual table are marked as BLOCK, and traffic can be dropped by the hardware [1744]; FIG. 24 shows an example of the BUM traffic flow for a L2VPN. A composite L2PVN BUM USAT is responsible of forwarding the BUM packet; Each constituent BUM USAT forwards BUM packet from a node to another node [1746];
Regarding Claim 4,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 3’ (disclosed above), ‘wherein the rule is an egress rule’ (Disclosure of Barry, Fig. 5 nodes serving various roles such as source, transit and root; additional roles may be assigned: ingress, egress, add/drop, translate (for VLAN and Q-in-Q), police (for rate limiting), monitor, and security. Nodes may also serve multiple roles, such as transit and monitor [0066]; switch node part of FGP and USAT perform a validation rule [0010, 0011];)
Barry discloses, ‘and the BUM data traffic and the identified control data have been tagged with one or more identifiers’ (disclosed above in claim 3),
Barry though discloses VLAN/VxLAN and in the relevant art that would appreciate that includes segmented network follows manageable network devices;
The node is explicitly listed with specific port setting can be represented as <a,b,n> where a is the L1 port, b is the L2 port and n is the node identifier which could be specific node [0536]
And, ‘that identify the BUM data traffic’ (disclosed above in Claim 2, Barry),
Fig. 17A and 17B shows the table entry with FG management system maintain active FGP, associated with glow management system (GMS) and table entries of table management system (TMS); includes the signaling, synchronization, alarms, entries, request status, and granting connections; that includes timestamp and identifier; Fig. 17B shows the USAT management switch and how the entry maintained associated with GMS, FGMS, TMS and has the id; Further, use USAT data structure includes id/identifier [0226]; A HW L2 Table entry as shown in FIG. 21. A VPN BUM USAT maps the BUM traffic in VPN 100 [1671];
[0010] FGMS to identify which role to perform based on the selected active FGP in the FGPL, determines the role instructions for the identified role and instructing the TMS to update the plurality of tables using a table management systems (TMS) by storing at least one entry in the plurality of software tables based on the definition for the at least one glow and the role instructions for the identified role, dynamically resolving conflicts among entries, and granting table update to hardware tables.
And further include from the disclosure of Barry, ‘and the identified control data to block or drop the BUM data traffic and the identified control data, using the egress rule, at egress processing at the primary VLT/LAG peer node.’ (see validity rule [0097-0099], For every graph, there are validation rules which specify whether the graph is valid at a particular node. The validation rules are node specific; A flow's table entries could vary from node to node; Therefore, each node of a graph is also assigned one or more roles in the graph. Some defined roles are ingress, egress, source, root, transit, add/drop [0268-0270]).
Regarding Claim 5,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 4’ (disclosed above),
Barry discloses, ‘further comprising tagging the BUM data traffic and the identified control data using a class identifier as part of ingress processing at the primary VLT/LAG peer node.’ (tagged the BUM traffic, Claim 2 and 4 disclosed above. And, Fig. 5 includes roles of switch nodes ingress and includes identifier information [0066].
FIG. 11 is a logic flow diagram that illustrates the operation of a method for setting up USATs and providing the relevant information to nodes; The process begins with a User Interface (UI)/Connect procedure. This can include automated processes where nodes in the network discover the network topology and determine a tree-spanning unicast and/or Broadcast, Unknown, Multicast (BUM) topology as a default communication tree; Shows the prepare the data for the nodes (ingress and egress); Fig. 17 shows the identifier for entries; Fig. 20 and 21 shows BUM transport, a packet from node to node and a VPN configuration entry is added to the hardware table at both A and B so that packet entering port a and port b will be classified [1678];)
And, Malhotra also discloses, uses of TAG to manage network flow frames at VLAN (see [0023, 0044-0045]),
Regarding Claim 6,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 1’ (disclosed above), ‘wherein the timing information comprises information regarding a time having expired.’ (Fig. 17 shows the USAT switch management includes entries with identifier and timestamps, alarms, status updates that have timing information [0125, 0126]; Further, A real time candidate graph is computed by the network elements using only the operational elements of the network. There are many such protocols with variations of spanning tree protocols being particularly prevalent. These protocols are generally designed to modify or recompute the graph in response to network changes or failures. [1815]; As many real time and pre-computed FGs as desired can be included in the FG set [1870];)
Regarding Claim 7,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method of claim 6’ (disclosed above), ‘wherein the time represents a time during which the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is configuring to an operational state.’ (From the disclosure of Barry, Fig. 17 shows the status information includes in the entries and the time stamp; Fig. 12 diagram shows how the FGMS of a node may update the node based on network events, such as a link going up or down. The network event is communicated to the node. The node then reviews each FGPL and finds the first FGP on each of the ordered list which is valid based on the new network status; USATs also define the interface; Not all nodes participate in all USATs but each node knows about the USAT it participates in (as a primary node or back-up) [0293-0294]; Fig. 15 shows the based on the current status and role information can go to active;)
Regarding Claim 8,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 1’ (disclosed above), ‘wherein activating the rule comprises the second control message instructing the primary VLT/LAG peer node to install the rule in the primary VLT/LAG peer node.’ (USAT management system is to interface with a controller; such as a C3, and to act as an umbrella operation for the underlying management systems. It accepts and installs USAT parts from Fitting; component of USAT management includes FGMS, GMS, and TMS [0298-0299]; Installs and instantiates the USATs based on instructions, time/instance factor; Each switch node includes the systems, USAT, GMS, FGMS, and TMS: Installs/changes its portion of the baseline topology based on the validity rule; [0315, 0336]; In Fig. 7 validity rule [0079]. The glow attributes validation rule [0373, 0375].)
Regarding Claim 9,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method comprising:’ (disclosed above in claim 1)’
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘determining at a first virtual link trunking (VLT)/link aggregation group (LAG) VLT/LAG peer node whether the first VLT/LAG peer node comprising at least one orphan port’; (further, Malhotra FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of a network with a first hop gateway redundancy between a first switch and a second switch; that is switch virtual interface illustrating steady state East-West flow [0015]; the orphan ESI port [0078]; Fig. 8 and 9 further shows the process of resolving orphan ESI. And, motive would be identical to claim 1 disclosed above.)
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘determining at the first VLT/LAG peer node whether the first VLT/LAG peer node comprises any VLT/LAG links with a second node that are operationally down, in which the first VLT/LAG peer node is communicatively coupled with a second VLT/LAG peer node that participates in the VLT/LAG via interchasis link (ICL)’; and in response to the first VLT/LAG peer node comprises no orphan ports’ (Barry, in Fig. 1 to 3 includes switches 100 peering node connected by 106 and physically connected multi-chasis between the switches 100 [01793]; directly connected L1 connections [0059]. And, the status sync to identify active disclosed above in Claim 1 as part of peering L2 baseline [0317]. And identify the glow attributes between peering nodes links [0373] further to modify to the disclosure of Malhotra to identify orphan ports. And motive would be identical to Claim 1 disclosed above);
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘and no VLT/LAG links that are operationally down, communicating, from the first VLT/LAG peer node to the second VLT/LAG peer node, a message that signals to the second VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more types of traffic to the first VLT/LAG peer node to prevent the one or more type of traffic from being dropped at the first VLT/LAG peer node.’ (Barry discloses, status sync message disclosed above in Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 10,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘further comprising: in response to the first VLT/LAG peer node comprises at least one orphan port or at least one LAG link that is operationally down, communicating, from the first VLT/LAG peer node to the second VLT/LAG peer node, a message that signals to the second VLT/LAG peer node to perform steps comprising: determining whether a rule that causes the second VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more type of traffic to the first VLT/LAG peer node via an inter-node link (INL) between the first VLT/LAG peer node and the second VLT/LAG peer node is active; and in response to the rule being active, deactivating the rule.’
Regarding Claim 11,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘ further comprising: receiving, from the second node at the first VLT/LAG peer node, a message that signals to the first VLT/LAG peer node to not send at least some data traffic to the second VLT/LAG peer node to prevent the at least some data traffic from being dropped at the second VLT/LAG peer node’;
Identical to part of the claim 8 disclosed above, ‘determining whether a rule that causes the first VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more type of traffic to the second node via an inter-node link (INL) between the first VLT/LAG peer node and the second VLT/LAG peer node is active; and in response to the rule not being active, installing the rule.’ ( In Fig. 7 includes validity rule and active. Installs/changes its portion of the baseline topology based on the validity rule [0315, 0336]; determination to send traffic based on the validity-rule and specific role instructions to block [0079] and in Fig. 7. )
Regarding Claim 12,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method of claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 10 disclosed above, ‘further comprising: receiving, from the second VLT/LAG peer node at the first VLT/LAG peer node, a message that indicates to the first VLT/LAG peer node that the second VLT/LAG peer node comprises an orphan port or a LAG link that is operationally down, performing steps comprising: determining whether the rule that causes the first VLT/LAG peer node to not send at least some data traffic to the second VLT/LAG peer node via the INL between the first VLT/LAG peer node and the second VLT/LAG peer node is active; and in response to the rule being active, deactivating the rule.’
Regarding Claim 13,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 2 disclosed above, ‘wherein the one or more type of traffic comprises broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) data traffic and at least some control data traffic.’
Regarding Claim 14,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method according to claim 13’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 3, 5 and 6 disclosed above, ‘wherein the BUM data traffic and the at least some control data traffic have been tagged with one or more identifiers that identify the BUM data traffic and the at least some control data traffic to block or drop the BUM data traffic and the at least some control data traffic, according to an egress rule, at egress processing at the second VLT/LAG peer node.’
Regarding Claim 15,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘further comprising: communicating, from the first VLT/LAG peer node to the second VLT/LAG peer node, a message comprising timer information’
Identical to part of the claim 11 disclosed above, ‘that signals to the second VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more type of traffic to the first VLT/LAG peer node to prevent the one or more type of traffic from being dropped at the first VLT/LAG peer node.’
Regarding Claim 16,
‘information-handling-system-implemented method of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 1 disclosed above, ‘further comprising: receiving, from the second VLT/LAG peer node at the first VLT/LAG peer node, a message comprising timer information’,
Identical to part of the claim 11 disclosed above, ‘that signals to the first VLT/LAG peer node to not send one or more type of traffic to the first VLT/LAG peer node to prevent the one or more type of traffic from being dropped at the second VLT/LAG peer node.’
Regarding Claim 17,
‘An information handling system comprising: at least one port for connecting with a peer virtual link trunking (VLT)/link aggregation group (VLT/LAG) node via an inter-node link (INL) one or more
Barry discloses, ‘one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising:’ FIG. 1 depicts an illustrative embodiment a plurality of physical or logical optical networks A and B. Each of the optical networks A, B includes a plurality of optical nodes 100, each of which is defined herein as a network node that can include ports for connection to host computers or other attached devices, ports that are connectable to other optical nodes 100 in the network [0042]; Fig. 1 to 3 shows controller, processors and memory;)
Identical to part of the claim 1, 10 and 12 disclosed above, ‘in response to the information handling system comprises no orphan ports and no VLT/LAG links that are operationally down, communicating to the peer VLT/LAG node a message that signals to the peer VLT/LAG node to not send one or more types of traffic to the information handling system; and in response to the information handling system comprises at least one orphan port or at least one VLT/LAG link that is operationally down, communicating to the peer VLT/LAG node a message that signals to the peer VLT/LAG node to perform steps comprising: determining whether a rule that causes the peer VLT/LAG node to not send one or more types of traffic to the information handling system via the INL is active; and in response to the rule being active, deactivating the rule.’
Regarding Claim 18,
‘information handling system of claim 17’ (disclosed above),
‘wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media further comprises one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising:’(disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 11 disclosed above, ‘receiving, from the peer VLT/LAG node, a message that signals to the information handling system to not send one or more type of traffic to the peer VLT/LAG node; determining whether a rule that causes the information handling system to not send one or more type of traffic to the peer VLT/LAG node via the INL is active; and in response to the rule not being active, installing the rule.’
Regarding Claim 19,
‘information handling system of claim 17’ (disclosed above), ‘wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media further comprises one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising:’(disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 12 disclosed above, ‘receiving, from the peer VLT/LAG node, a message that indicates to the information handling system that the peer VLT/LAG node comprises an orphan port or a LAG link that is operationally down, performing steps comprising: determining whether the rule that causes the information handling system to not send one or more types of traffic to the peer VLT/LAG node via the INL is active; and in response to the rule being active, deactivating the rule.’
Regarding Claim 20,
‘information handling system of claim 17(disclosed above),
Identical to part of the claim 2, and 13 disclosed above, ‘wherein the one or more types of traffic comprises broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) data traffic and one or more types of data traffic’.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Arguments:
Claims 1-20 were presented for examination and are pending in this application. In the NFOA, Claims 1-20 were rejected. Claims 1-5, and 7-20 were amended herein. No new matter was added.
The amendments find support throughout the Specification. The Specification expressly describes embodiments in the context of virtual link aggregation group peer nodes connected by an inter-node link (INL) or inter-chassis link (ICL). See, e.g., Specification at 1[0003], 11[0017]- [0022]. Virtual Link Trunking (VLT) is Dell's implementation of multi-chassis LAG architecture, and the inter-chassis link (ICL) is a standard term for the peer link connecting VLT peer nodes.
On the basis of the following remarks, reconsideration and allowance of all pending claims are respectfully requested. Applicant incorporates by reference herein its prior response for all purposes including for Appeal.
I. Response to Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the NFOA, Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in light of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0006719, listing Barry et al. as inventors (hereinafter, the "Barry document" or "Barry") in view of WO 2020/041742, listing Malhotra et al. as inventor (hereinafter, the "Malhotra document" or "Malhotra"). See NFOA, p. 2-40.
An asserted combination must teach or suggest each and every claim feature. See, e.g., MPEP 2143.03 (to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim features must be taught or suggested by the prior art). It remains well-settled law that obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) requires at least a suggestion of all of the features in a claim. See, e.g., In re Wada and Murphy, citing CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art."). Because the cited documents fail to suggest or disclose at least one claim element for each of the pending claims, Applicant traverses these rejections.
The claimed inventions relate to a primary peer node receiving two types of control messages from a secondary peer node via the inter-node link (INL) (or inter-chassis link (ICL)) that connects the peer nodes of a virtual link trunking/link aggregation group (VLT/LAG): (1) a first control message from the secondary VLT peer node conveying timing information related to a configuration period during which the secondary VLT peer node is not yet ready to handle at least certain traffic; and (2) a second control message explicitly indicating whether the secondary VLT peer node comprises: (a) at least one VLT/LAG port channel link that is operationally down; (b) at least one orphan port; or (c) both.
Embodiments further include conditionally activating or deactivating an INL/ICL traffic-gating rule or rules at the primary peer node based on the second control message. Depending upon the circumstances, the rule or rules affect whether the primary peer node sends or does not send certain traffic to the secondary peer node via the INL/ICL.
As discussed in the current Application, previously no such traffic-gating at the peer VLT/LAG node level for these circumstances existed. As a result, unnecessary data traffic flooded the peer VLT/LAG node, which ultimately dropped the traffic-contributing to needless overload at the peer VLT/LAG node. The sending of data from one peer VLT/LAG node to a second VLT/LAG peer node via the INL/ICL not only needlessly consumed resources (e.g., memory and bandwidth) of the second VLT/LAG peer node but also needlessly consumed resources of the sending node. Such operations unnecessarily use resources, which degrades performance. In networks with heavy demands, any unnecessary work may cause excessive delays and other problems.
A. Barry Does Not Teach or Suggest the Claimed Architecture or Control
Logic
Barry's USAT is a controller-defined abstract topology and flow-affinity model used for routing and path selection within a fabric-not a VLT/LAG peer-to-peer control messaging mechanism that coordinates inter-node traffic suppression based on (1) configuration or (2) link or orphan-port status.
1. Barry Does Not Disclose VLT/LAG Peer Nodes Connected by an INL/ICL for Control Gating
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 (as amended) require a VLT/LAG peer node architecture with an inter-chassis link (ICL) connecting the primary and secondary VLT/LAG peer nodes, where the ICL is used to exchange peer control messages that directly gate traffic transmission between the peers.
Barry does not disclose such an architecture. Barry's system is built around a centralized process that computes USAT (Universally Specified Affinity Topology) configurations and distributes them to nodes via the network fabric. Nodes do not coordinate VLT/LAG peer behavior via a dedicated peer ICL/INL. Instead, they independently evaluate USAT fragments received from one or more centralized engines.
Figures cited by the NFOA (e.g., Barry FIGS. 21 and 22) depict nodes participating in a fabric graph, not VLT/MLAG peer switches joined by a dedicated inter-chassis control link. The links shown are part of a general network fabric, not a peer synchronization link used to suppress traffic between VLT/LAG peers.
This is most clearly depicted when one closely reviews FIGS. 21 and 22, which the NFOA references for the concept of peer VLT/LAG nodes connecting via an INL/ICL. Note while FIG. 21 shows connections between El and E2 and between E2 and E3, these are not part of the VLT/LAG connection that forms the INL/ICL. This fact is undisputedly depicted in FIG. 22 (reproduced below), which depicts the flow but shows NO CONNECTIONS between E1, E2, or E3.
FIG. 23 depicts nodes E1, E2, and E3 without any inter-peer link connecting them because they are neither VLT/LAG peers nor do they possess a INL/ICL as claimed herein. This distinction is not semantic. In VLT/LAG systems, the peer ICL exists to carry peer state and control signaling for bilateral coordination. Barry's architecture does not include such a bilateral peer-control plane.
2. Barry's USAT Is Not Peer-to-Peer Control Messaging
The NFOA equates Barry's USAT signaling and status synchronization with the claimed control messages. That mapping is incorrect.
USAT in Barry is a controller-defined topology and flow-affinity model that is used to select flow paths within a fabric. USAT is not a control message exchanged between peer VLT/LAG nodes to coordinate traffic handling. And, Barry's validity rules determine which fabric graph is eligible-not whether a VLT peer should send or cease sending traffic to another peer via their ICL/INL.
3. Barry Does Not Disclose the Claimed Control Messages or Their Content
The claims require: (1) a first control message conveying configuration timing during which a peer is not yet ready to handle one or more types of traffic; and (2) a second control message indicating a status of orphan ports and VLT/LAG port channel links operationally down.
Barry does not disclose either message. The NFOA concedes that Barry does not disclose orphan ports. Without orphan ports, Barry cannot disclose a message indicating no orphan ports AND no VLT/LAG operationally down, which is a trigger condition for rule activation in the claims. Tracking link status in a database is not the same as communicating a combined negative peer state to trigger traffic suppression at another VLT/LAG peer node via an ICL/INL.
4. The NFOA's Mapping of Barry's Timing Information Fails to Address the
Specific Claim Language
The NFOA broadly cites Barry's timestamps, status synchronization, and network status variables as disclosing the claimed "timing information." See, e.g., NFOA, p. 7-10. This mapping ignores the specific claim language.
The claims do not recite generic timing information or timestamps. Rather, Claim 1 recites a first control message that comprises timing information related to a configuration time period of the secondary VLT/LAG peer node during which the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is not yet configured to handle one or more types of traffic. This is not a mere timestamp data or indicating when a link went down. This is timing information about a node readiness state-specifically, its configuration readiness during which the secondary VLT/LAG peer node is still booting up or initializing and therefore cannot yet process certain traffic types.
Barry's timestamps record historical events in the network (e.g., when a link status changed). The claimed timing information communicates prospective node state-that the secondary peer is currently in a configuration period and will not be ready to handle traffic until that period expires. This distinction is important. As described in the Specification, when a VLT peer node is booting up, unnecessary control plane and data plane traffic bombard the switch and CPU, causing excessive processing delays. The claimed first control message enables the primary node to know that the secondary node is in this configuration state and to act accordingly-before flooding traffic that would be dropped. Accordingly, the NFOA's reliance on Barry's generalized timing information is insufficient.
Accordingly, Barry does not disclose: (1) peer readiness signaling (timing information about configuration periods); (2) peer configuration timing coordination; or (3) peer-directed traffic gating based on combined orphan port and VLT port channel link status.
B. Malhotra Does Not Cure Barry's Deficiencies
Malhotra's discussion of orphan ESI concerns maintaining reachability when orphan conditions exist-not affirmatively signaling about orphan ports to address handling of traffic to efficiently utilize network resources, as claimed herein.
The claimed inventions include messaging between peer VLT/LAG nodes explicitly indicating status of orphan ports and VLT/LAG links, which Malhotra never teaches or suggests. Malhotra also lacks: (1) configuration-timing control messages; and (2) rule activation/deactivation at a VLT/LAG peer based on such messages.
While Malhotra may discuss orphan ports, NOWHERE does Malhotra discuss sending a control message about no orphan ports. Each instance of Malhotra deals with handling orphaned ports-it does not address no-orphan-ports control messaging and certainly not control messaging that indicates that BOTH no VLT/LAG links are operationally down AND no orphan ports, as claimed herein.
II.Response to Rejection of Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. # 103
It should be noted that Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 depend from one of independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, which comprises at least one claim element that was established above to be absent in the cited documents. Because by statute each dependent claim contains every element of the claim or claims from which it depends, Applicant notes that each of the dependent claims are also allowable for at least the same reasons as set forth regarding their respective independent claims. See 35 USC § 112(d) ("A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers."); see also In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (stating that if an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, then any claim depending therefrom is also nonobvious).
Examiners response: With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks, examiner responses are:
Examiner reviewed the applicant’s arguments/remarks and the amended claims. Presented required disclosures in the office actions from the closest and relevant prior art that covers the subject matters. Addressed all the claims and applicant’s argument/remarks disclosed from the presented prior arts “Barry”, and “Malhotra”.
Examiner presented most competent prior art “Barry” with a precise disclosure regarding the subject matter and the claim scope that encompasses link aggregation comprises an INL/multi-chassis between the primary and the secondary switch node uses a L2- baseline peering topology. The USAT distinctly perform the procedures as recited in the claim complemented by Malhatora.
Regarding the claim subject matter control traffic between the peering nodes:
And the first control message and configuration timing information and the second control message that secondary node comprises at least one orphan port or both;
Disclosure Barry include:
- Fig. 1 to 3 includes fitting engine L2/L3 layer routing manageable network fabric and optical peering nodes. And, Control plane topology and configuration autonomously created and managed by the manageable L2/L3 switches [0051] by console or UI/connect as part of network administration. Fitting process performed periodically and run based on changes in the network status [0094]. Includes both fitting pre-processing and post processing and further include visualization/monitoring enhance the routing and switching capability [0049-0054] and Fig. 11.
- First control message identical as disclosed, peering nodes control plane-config autonomously managed status synch message and network status uses USAT signaling procedure to identify the status. GMS include features of status update, alarm, outport NULL mode and NULL mode Block. Each table entry uses time stamp and identifier Fig. 16 and Fig. 17. Switch node GMS receive USAT signaling (e.g., network updates from neighbor nodes) and/or status synch message (request from neighbor switch node to synchronize network status information). And, SDK to control hardware elements [0117-0118].
- Second control message that secondary node comprises at least one LAG link operationally down. As disclosed above, GMS status synch message (request from neighbor switch node to synchronize network status information [0117-0118] that can identify the status. In addition, Network status variable to identify LAG link operationally down at specific time [1800-1804]. Fig. 11 illustrates visualization/monitoring.
- Barry discloses, the Primary and the secondary node connected to host machine uses an access port Fig. 2 [0049-0054] and configured to connect directly in-ports to out-ports and control/re-configure traffic [0059].
Barry provide strong motivation to avoid congestion, classification H04L47/125 specifically to identify the link and port status of peering nodes [0373].
And didn’t disclose, ‘orphan port’
- Malhotra in the relevant discloses orphan port between the peering node connect to host machine, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 [0068, 0078]. The ARP-request not flooded in orphan port. And, obvious rationale to derive the claim as identically carry the motivation to avoid congestion, see classification both disclosures.
Regarding the applicant remarks/arguments, examiner respectfully disagree, the Barry doesn’t teach/suggest claimed architectures or control logic…
Examiner presented in the previous OA, most important features disclosed by Barry as part of USAT
a base L2 topology default peering topology of the network prior placement of any USATs. In the USATs, Fitting creates a base L2 topology optimized for the network traffic and passes it to the nodes uses fitting. The nodes install the baseline topology. USAT define interface between Fitting and the nodes. Fitting send relevant USAT parts that a node is participating in that particular USAT requires and this allows the node to perform validity check [0288-0295]. A glow attributes describes whether the flow should be blocked. For L2 validation rules uses L1 and L2 link peering [0373]. Network status and uses validity rule: node/L2 link peering status: up/down [0908]. Fitting creates data structures and operates Fabric management system and determine how the network fabric will operate for a USAT. Disclosure brings an important distinction regarding the capability between the fixed FG part and dynamic FG part. And, Dynamic FG part uses USAT inter-node signaling go beyond the capability define in the claim peering configuration and control message [0729-0730, 0803-0804]. Includes either in-ports or out-ports set as dynamic. A dynamic port is set by communication with USAT neighbor requires inter-node USAT signaling [0891]. Disclosure specify intra-USAT and inter-node message, a signaling protocol [0891, 0893] that performs control message configuration.
Disclosure include: role of nodes, validity rule and assigned ingress, egress, add/drop, translate (for VLAN and Q-in-Q), police (for rate limiting), monitor, and security [0066, 0071] and Fig. 7. The Fitting pre-processing in Fig. 11, network events links up/down in Fig. 12; initialize glow in Fig. 14. Most importantly USAT signaling status synch to identify port Null/Block in Fig. 16.
Regarding Activate/de-activate an inter-node link traffic-gating rule or rules at primary on the second control message and primary node doesn’t send certain data traffic to the secondary INL, disclosure glows in a primary or secondary and can block attribute activate/de-activate [0263, 1498].
Regarding the flooding/congestion, Barry discloses proactive-ARP [1712]. That is complemented by Malhotra comprehensive disclosure regarding the ARP mechanism to address the flooding, the ARP request to the orphan ESI host [0019-0020]. And, ARP SYNC between the peering nodes and the ARP reply generated [0064-0065] and the identification of the orphan port is flooded or not [0078].
Important features,
Barry provide granular level glow and flow implementation within framework of USAT. Includes control and fitting technique. Illustrates embedded and pre-computed fabric graph uses real time algorithm validation rules and handle network traffic. Real time computed graph by spanning tree protocol. USAT validity includes operation status of node, link and port status [0907-0915].
Further, USATs are:
Universal to streamline Fitting and node development, as well as unify Fitting resource sharing algorithms; Pre-processing fitting
Scalable
Redundant and bandwidth guarantee
Loop-free operations and congestion avoidance pro-active ARP technique
Port operationally status and restoration procedure. And, didn’t disclose, an orphan port.
Disclosure of Malhotra discloses,
ARP mechanism and the orphan port ESI in a SVI and between the peer nodes.
Examiner presented the transitional feature between the prior arts and a directional motive of Barry that is to avoid congestion and perform pro-active ARP technique to derive the claims.
Examiner thanks applicant and attorney for their time and effort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
HE et. al. (Pub No: US 2023/0031683 Al, Pub Dt: Feb. 2, 2023)Title: “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ETHERNET VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK (EVPN) SPLIT-HORIZON FILTERING”; Disclosure provided important features in the relevant art. BUM traffic in NFV uses network slices at finer level of granularity [0068] and filtering packets in EVPN network instances and device. A edge computing and network slices include provider edge (a plurality of PE) forward/route traffic to a plurality of customer edge (CE), [0021] and Fig. 5. Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) is a network virtualization technology that attempts to address the scalability.
Grosser et. al. (Pub No. US 9,385,942 B2, Jul. 5, 2016 )Title: “METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR PROVIDING N-NODE MULTI-SWITCH LINK AGGREGATION GROUPS (MLAGS)”; ..
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 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.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached
on (571) 272-7969. 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466