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 Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 9 February 2026 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claims 1-20 now pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao et al (US Pub. 2014/0071812) in view of Perumal et al (US Pub. 2019/0034305) and Ferrari et al (US 2004/0078419 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pao discloses a system for resilience in network communications, the system comprising:
a first network port pair comprising:
a first input network port at a first network level; and
a first output network port at a second network level (fig. 1, 2, switch 150a, primary ports Pm; para. 22);
…
an intermediate switch disposed between the first network level and the second network level and configured to communicably connect the first input network port and the first output network port in an instance in which each of the first input network port and the first output network port are operable … (fig. 1, 2, switches 150a, primary ports Pm; para. 22); and
a first redundant network port communicably connected with the intermediate switch (fig. 2, redundant port Pr; para. 24), wherein the intermediate switch is configured to:
establish communication between the first input network port and the first redundant network port in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the first output network port (fig. 2, faulty link 110’, i.e., a Pm port malfunction; para. 32, when the main link 110’ is faulty, the redundant connection port Pr is converted to a forwarding port); or
establish communication between the first output network port and the first redundant network port in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the first input network port.
That is, Pao discloses a network communication system including network nodes having multiple network ports and redundant communication paths, where a redundant port is used when a primary communication path fails. Pao describes nodes connected through network links where traffic can be redirected through alternate ports or links when a failure condition occurs, thereby maintaining communication continuity.
Pao does not specifically disclose:
a second network port pair comprising:
a second input network port at a first network level; and
a second output network port at a second network level;
an intermediate switch … configured to … communicably connect the second input network port and the second output network port.
However, Perumal discloses failover mechanisms in a network switch where a device port can fail over to a backup device port when a link-down condition occurs, and where the switch dynamically identifies failover ports and redirects traffic accordingly. (fig. 1, 7; para. 25, 29, 66, 67, N+1 redundancy to support failover). Thus, Perumal teaches switching communication to a redundant port upon detection of a malfunction condition.
Ferrari discloses a networking architecture including a high-speed switching fabric connecting multiple network interface modules, where the system integrates routing and multi-port LAN switching to interconnect network interfaces and support redundant network access with failover. (fig. 1; para. 80, 85) Ferrari therefore teaches a multi-port intermediate switching structure positioned between network interfaces, capable of routing traffic among multiple ports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the multi-port switching architecture of Ferrari into the redundancy system of Pao as further improved by Perumal, in order to allow the redundant ports described by Pao and Perumal to be interconnected through a centralized switching fabric capable of routing traffic between multiple network ports. Such a modification would represent the predictable use of a known multi-port switching structure to manage redundant network connections and improve fault tolerance and traffic routing within the network. Implementing Ferrari’s switching fabric in the system of Pao and Perumal would therefore yield a system in which multiple port pairs are interconnected through an intermediate switch that redirects communication to a redundant port when a malfunction occurs, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Pao further discloses wherein the intermediate switch is further configured to terminate communication between the first input network port and the first output network port in response to the indication of the malfunction associated with the first output network port or the first input network port (para. 32, the main connection port Pm connected to the faulty link is converted to a block port).
Regarding claim 3, Pao further discloses:
wherein the intermediate switch is further configured to:
terminate communication between the first redundant network port and the first input network port and reestablish communication between the first input network port and the first output network port in response to an indication that the malfunction associated with the first output network port is resolved; and
terminate communication between the first redundant network port and the first output network port and reestablish communication between the first input network port and the first output network port in response to an indication that the malfunction associated with the first input network port is resolved (fig. 7, step S607; para. 54, repairing the faulty main link 110’).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repair the broken link and restore service thereby terminating the connection with the redundant port Pr and reconnect the previously faulty port.
Regarding claim 4, Pao further discloses:
wherein the intermediate switch further configured to:
establish communication between the second input network port and the first redundant network port in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the second output network port; or
establish communication between the second output network port and the first redundant network port in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the second input network port (para. 32).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this teaching of Pao in order to enhance system robustness.
Regarding claim 5, Pao further discloses further comprising:
a second redundant network port communicably connected with the intermediate switch, wherein the intermediate switch is further configured to:
establish communication between the second redundant network port and the second output network port in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the second input network port, or
establish communication between the second redundant network port and the second input network port in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the second output network port (fig. 2; para. 32).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this teaching of Pao in order to enhance system robustness.
Regarding claim 6, Pao further discloses wherein the intermediate switch comprises a plurality of sub- switches (Pao, fig. 2; Perumal, para. 15, port supporting Fibre Channel protocol).
Regarding claim 7, Pao-Perumal further discloses wherein the first input network port, the first output network port, and the first redundant network port are electrical switches, and the intermediate switch is an optical switch.
Regarding claim 8, Pao further discloses further comprising: an additional layer network port; an additional intermediate switch configured to communicably connect the additional layer network port and the first input network port in an instance in which the additional layer network port and the first input network port are operable; and a second redundant network port communicably connected with the additional intermediate switch, wherein the additional intermediate switch is configured to: establish communication between the additional layer network port and the second redundant network port in an instance in which the additional intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the first input network port, or establish communication between the first input network port and the second redundant network port in an instance in which the additional intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the additional layer network port (para. 28, the switch may work in different layers of the OSI network model). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply teaching of Pao to implement an additional layer network port and accordingly the features as recited in the claim to ease of development.
Regarding claim 9, Pao further discloses wherein the additional intermediate switch is further configured to terminate communication between the additional layer network port and the first input network port in response to the indication of the malfunction associated with the first input network port. (para. 32)
Regarding claim 10, Pao further discloses further comprising a controller operably coupled with the intermediate switch configured to direct communications between the first input network port, the first output network port, and the first redundant network port (fig. 5).
Claim 11 recites an apparatus for resilience in network communications, corresponding to the system of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites substantially identical subject matter as claim 3, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claims 13-14 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 4-5, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim 15 recites a method for providing resilience in network communications, corresponding to the system of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites a method for providing resilience in network communications, corresponding to the system of claim 3, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 17-20 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 4-5, and are thus similarly rejected.
Conclusion
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-39880-1096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights