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 June 2026 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claims 1-23 now pending.
Claims 1-23 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dally et al. (US 2001/0053160 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 7,613,177 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dally discloses a system for resilience in network communications, the system comprising: a first network port pair comprising: a first input network port of a first plurality of networking switches at a first network level; and a first output network port of a second plurality of networking switches at a second network level; a second network port pair comprising: a second input network port of the first plurality of networking switches at the first network level; and a second output network port of the second plurality of networking switches at the second network level; an intermediate switch disposed between the first plurality of networking switches at the first network level and the second plurality of networking switches at 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; and communicably connect the second input network port and the second output network port; and a first redundant network port communicably connected with the intermediate switch in part.
Dally discloses a multistage digital cross-connect comprising plural switching stages having plural switches. In particular, Dally discloses N input-stage switches 44, M middle-stage switches 46, and N output-stage switches 48, with the middle-stage switches disposed between and interconnected with the input-stage and output-stage switches (Dally ¶[0076], Fig. 5). Dally further teaches that the input-stage switches connect to the middle-stage switches and the middle-stage switches connect to the output-stage switches, thereby providing multiple communication paths through the intermediate switching stage (Dally ¶¶[0076]-[0082], Fig. 5). Thus, Dally's input-stage switches 44 correspond to the first plurality of networking switches at the first network level, Dally's output-stage switches 48 correspond to the second plurality of networking switches at the second network level, and a middle-stage switch 46 corresponds to the intermediate switch disposed therebetween. The respective inter-stage connections correspond to the recited network ports and permit respective input and output network ports to be communicably connected through the intermediate switch.
Dally further teaches redundant connectivity in the multistage network, including redundant links and multiple middle-stage switches for tolerance of a single point of failure.
Dally does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate switch is configured to: establish communication between the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches 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 of the second plurality of networking switches.
Lu teaches providing pathwise redundancy for fault tolerance in a multistage switching network by providing an additional switching stage/path. Lu expressly teaches that extra stages can be added to provide pathwise redundancy for fault tolerance and that, if a failure occurs in a connection within the network, the extra stage can be used to route traffic around the fault. Lu further teaches activating the extra stage upon detection of a fault. (Fig. 1, 4C; abstract; 1:11-36; 5:24-38; 21:15-27) Thus, Lu teaches detecting a malfunction associated with an existing switching connection and, responsive thereto, establishing communication through an available redundant switching path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Lu's failure-responsive redundant-path routing into Dally's multistage switching network in order to provide pathwise redundancy and fault tolerance and thereby maintain network communication upon failure of a normal communication connection. Dally already provides multiple paths through its intermediate switching stage and recognizes the desirability of tolerance to a single point of failure, while Lu expressly teaches activating a redundant switching path upon detection of a fault to route traffic around the failed connection. Accordingly, applying Lu's known fault-tolerant routing technique to Dally would predictably establish communication through an available redundant port/path upon receiving an indication of a malfunction associated with the normal output connection.
Regarding claim 2, Dally in view of Lu further teaches 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. Lu teaches detecting a fault in a connection and routing traffic around the fault using a redundant switching path. It would have been obvious to terminate use of the malfunctioning normal connection when redirecting the traffic through the redundant path because continued use of the failed connection would defeat Lu's expressly disclosed purpose of routing traffic around the fault.
Regarding claim 3, Dally in view of Lu further teaches 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. Lu teaches activating the redundant switching path upon detection of a fault to route traffic around the fault. It would have been obvious, upon resolution of the fault and restoration of the normal path to an operable condition, to discontinue use of the temporary redundant path and reestablish communication over the normal path, thereby returning the switching network to its normal configuration and making the redundant switching resource available for subsequent faults.
Regarding claim 4, Dally in view of Lu further teaches wherein the intermediate switch is further configured to: establish communication between the second input network port of the first plurality of networking switches 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 of the second plurality of networking switches. Dally teaches multiple input/output connections and multiple paths through its middle switching stage, while Lu teaches activating a redundant switching path upon detection of a connection failure to route traffic around the fault. It would have been obvious to apply Lu's failure-responsive redundant-path technique to Dally's second communication path in the same manner as the first communication path in order to maintain communication upon failure of the second output connection.
Regarding claim 5, Dally in view of Lu further teaches 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 of the second plurality of networking switches in an instance in which the intermediate switch receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the second input network port of the first plurality of networking switches. Dally teaches multiple middle-stage switches and multiple inter-stage connections providing alternative communication paths, while Lu teaches providing additional redundant switching paths for fault tolerance and routing traffic around a failed connection upon detection of the fault. It would have been obvious to provide and use a second redundant port/path for the corresponding second communication path in order to provide pathwise redundancy and maintain communication when the associated input connection fails.
Regarding claim 6, Dally further teaches wherein the intermediate switch comprises a plurality of sub-switches. Dally expressly teaches that the intermediate or middle switching stage comprises a plurality of middle-stage switches 46 disposed between the plurality of input-stage switches 44 and plurality of output-stage switches 48 (Dally ¶[0076], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Dally in view of Lu further teaches 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. Dally teaches a digital cross-connect comprising electrical switching elements at the input and output switching stages. Lu further teaches a multistage interconnection network having connections between switching stages that may comprise optical fibers, and teaches selectively disconnecting an optical-fiber connection from one port and reconnecting the disconnected end to another port to establish a new connection. Lu further teaches adding intermediate switching stages and paths to provide pathwise redundancy and fault tolerance. (7:45-67; 21:15--27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the intermediate switching functionality of Dally using optical switching in conjunction with the optical connections taught by Lu while retaining electrical switching at the input and output switching levels, in order to provide switching and rerouting of communications over the disclosed optical inter-stage connections and obtain the known transmission benefits associated with optical interconnections in a multistage network. Such implementation would have constituted the predictable use of optical switching for Lu's expressly disclosed optical inter-stage connections in Dally's multistage switching architecture.
Regarding claim 8, Dally in view of Lu further teaches 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 of the first plurality of networking switches.
Dally teaches a multistage switching architecture having successive switching levels and intermediate switching stages, including input, middle, and output switching stages interconnected through respective ports and links (Dally ¶¶[0076]-[0082], Fig. 5). Lu further teaches adding switching stages to a multistage interconnection network to provide additional paths and pathwise redundancy for fault tolerance. Lu expressly teaches using the added stage to route traffic around a failed connection upon detection of the fault. It would have been obvious to extend Dally's multistage architecture with an additional switching layer and intermediate switching stage as taught by Lu and to provide the additional stage with a redundant path, in order to increase pathwise redundancy and fault tolerance and maintain communication upon failure of a connection at the additional network level.
Regarding claim 9, Dally in view of Lu further teaches wherein the additional intermediate switch is further configured to terminate communication between the additional layer network port and the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches in response to the indication of the malfunction associated with the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches. Lu teaches that, upon detection of a fault, the redundant switching stage/path is activated to route traffic around the failed connection. It would have been obvious to terminate use of the malfunctioning connection while redirecting the traffic through the redundant path in order to route the communication around the detected fault, for substantially the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Dally further teaches a controller operably coupled with the intermediate switch configured to direct communications between the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches, the first output network port of the second plurality of networking switches, and the first redundant network port in part. Dally teaches control of communication paths through its multistage digital cross-connect, including selection and configuration of paths through the middle-stage switching network. Lu further teaches controlling a redundant switching path such that the redundant path is activated upon detection of a fault and traffic is routed around the failed connection. It would have been obvious to configure the controller of Dally to direct communications among the normal and redundant paths in accordance with Lu's failure-responsive routing technique in order to implement the fault-tolerant switching operation discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 in apparatus form, including first and second pluralities of networking switches at respective network levels, first and second input and output network ports, an apparatus disposed between the first and second pluralities of networking switches, and establishing communication with a first redundant network port upon receiving an indication of a malfunction associated with the first output network port. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Dally in view of Lu further teaches terminate communication between the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches and the first output network port of the second plurality of networking switches in response to the indication of the malfunction associated with the first output network port of the second plurality of networking switches or the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches. Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Dally in view of Lu further teaches establish communication between the second input network port of the first plurality of networking switches and the first redundant network port in response to receiving an indication of a malfunction associated with the second output network port of the second plurality of networking switches. Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, Dally in view of Lu further teaches wherein, in an instance in which the apparatus receives an indication of a malfunction associated with the first input network port of the first plurality of networking switches, the apparatus is configured to establish communication between the first output network port of the second plurality of networking switches and a second redundant network port. Dally provides multiple inter-stage connections and alternative communication paths through its middle switching stage, while Lu teaches pathwise redundancy and routing traffic around a failed connection upon detection of the fault. It would have been obvious to apply Lu's failure-responsive redundant-path technique to an input-side failure in Dally to establish an available redundant connection to the corresponding output network port, thereby maintaining communication despite the detected malfunction.
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.
Regarding claim 21, Dally in view of Lu further teaches wherein the first redundant network port is a first output redundant network port. Dally teaches multiple output-side connections through its multistage switching architecture, while Lu teaches providing redundant switching paths for routing traffic around a failed connection. It would have been obvious to provide Lu's redundant path at the output side of Dally's switching network to maintain output communication when the normal output connection fails.
Regarding claim 22, Dally in view of Lu further teaches wherein the intermediate switch and the additional intermediate switch are configured to communicably connect with the second redundant network port. Dally teaches multiple interconnected switching stages and communication paths, and Lu teaches additional stages and redundant paths extending through a multistage switching network for pathwise redundancy and fault tolerance. It would have been obvious to communicably connect the redundant path with both intermediate switching stages to permit the redundant path to bypass a failed connection and maintain communication through the multistage network.
Regarding claim 23, Dally in view of Lu further teaches wherein the additional layer network port is a host. Dally teaches that its multistage switching network communicates between source and destination devices through the respective switching stages. A host is a conventional source or destination endpoint of such a network. It would have been obvious to use a host as the additional-layer network endpoint connected to Dally's multistage switching network to permit the host to communicate through the network.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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