DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “computer readable medium” includes transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave. Based on In re Nuijten (2007) and MPEP 2106, these "signals per se" are transitory, not physical or non-transitory are not patentable. Claims must typically be amended to "non-transitory" media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki; Venkata Ramana Kiran US PGPUB 20130028072, in view of Selvaraj; Satish Kumar et al. US PGPUB 20210409293 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Addanki teaches An apparatus comprising: a switch circuitry comprising: circuitry, when operational, ([0024] Line cards 110 and 112 and switch fabric 150 in Ethernet switch 104 may include logic and memory. Logic performs the operations of the component, for example, executes instructions to generate output from input. Logic may include hardware, software, and/or other logic. Logic may be encoded in one or more tangible computer readable storage media and may perform operations when executed by a computer. Certain logic, such as a processor, may manage the operation of a component. Examples of a processor include one or more computers, one or more microprocessors, one or more applications, and/or other logic. ) to:
based on receipt of a multicast group identifier and hash value, ([0029] a hash rule 140 that divides the incoming data stream or traffic into multiple streams.) select a port of a link aggregation group (LAG) ([0029] In this embodiment, the data received at a port 130 of ingress line card 110a is hashed into eight streams that are mapped via Multicast Group ID (MGID) tables 120 to ports on egress line cards 112.) based on multiple tables ([0049] MGID table and port-map table) and
switch fabric circuitry, ([0024])
Addanki does not teach wherein: a first table of the multiple tables comprises indices for indexing into a second table of the multiple tables and the second table comprises multiple LAG words to use to construct a LAG entry word.
However, Selvaraj teaches
wherein: a first table of the multiple tables comprises indices for indexing into a second table of the multiple tables ([0040] Should lookups on the ingress next hop table result in the identification of LAG group indices, those indices, in turn, may be used to perform additional lookups on a LAG table (see e.g., FIG. 2G).) and the second table comprises multiple LAG words to use to construct a LAG entry word. ([0053] Further, the LAG group index (248) may refer to a unique identifier (or pointer) (i.e., a reference) associated with a table entry in the LAG table (see e.g., FIG. 2G).)
in order to ensure network reliability by flooding the network. ([0016])
Addanki and Selvaraj are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Addanki with the technique of LAG indices in order to improve network reliability.
Regarding claim 7. Addanki and Selvaraj teach The apparatus of claim 1, and Addanki teaches comprising: at least one ingress port coupled to the switch fabric circuitry and at least one egress port coupled to the switch fabric circuitry. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 8. Addanki and Selvaraj teach The apparatus of claim 1, wherein LAG is consistent with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) specification 802.3ad (2017). ([0007] The traffic may be uniquely identified by customer Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) IDs as described in IEEE 802.1ad.)
Regarding claim 9. Addanki and Selvaraj teach The apparatus of claim 1, Addanki teaches wherein the switch circuitry comprises one or more of: network interface controller (NIC), (Fig. 1, Line cards) SmartNIC, router, forwarding element, infrastructure processing unit (IPU), or data processing unit (DPU).
Regarding claim 10 and 15. Addanki and Selvaraj teaches A computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, to perform the method in claim 1 and 9. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki and Selvaraj as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BERGER; Thomas R. et al. US PGPUB 20100144383 A1.
Regarding claim 2. Addanki and Selvaraj teach The apparatus of claim 1, but it does not teach wherein the first table of the multiple tables comprises pre-computed sum values.
However, Berger teaches
wherein the first table of the multiple tables comprises pre-computed sum values. ([0214] Each captured node of the network contains a next hop table with three entries corresponding to three potential next hop nodes. Each entry includes an address, i.e., the UID of that next hop node, a hop count, representing a number of hops required to reach the gateway node using that next hop node, and a qualifier. The qualifier is a number from zero to one hundred which indicates a next hop node's preferability as determined by several factors, with higher numbers indicating less desirability.)
in order to optimize networking setup with autonomous reconfiguration of networks ([0148])
Addanki and Berger are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Addanki with the technique of next hop count in Berger in order to optimize networking setup.
Regarding claim 11. Addanki and Selvaraj and Berger teach The computer-readable medium of claim 10, performing method in claim 2.
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki and Selvaraj as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dropps; Frank R. US Patent 9264383 B1.
Regarding claim 3. Addanki and Selvaraj teach The apparatus of claim 1, but it does not teach wherein the circuitry, when operational, is to: based on receipt of a multicast group identifier and hash value, select a port of the LAG based on multiple tables and a single adder.
However, Dropps teaches
wherein the circuitry, when operational, is to: based on receipt of a multicast group identifier and hash value, (col 13, line 35 “a multicast group and a destination mask 600F for handling multicast requests. In one embodiment, a multicast group maps a multicast group number 600E to a destination mask 600F that may be used by arbiter 614 to determine destination ports for a frame.) select a port of the LAG based on multiple tables and a single adder. (col 8, line 30 Multiplexer 272B selects another port's stored QOS bin 0 information 269A-269N as the “B” addend for adder 278A. The output 279A from adder 278A then becomes the “A” addend for the next adder in a series of adders′.)
in order to increase redundancy (col 6, line 5)
Addanki and Dropps are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Addanki with the technique of multiplexing routing in Dropps in order to increase redundancy.
Regarding claim 4. Addanki and Selvaraj and Dropps teach The apparatus of claim 3, Addanki teaches wherein one or more bits of the LAG entry word identify ports in the LAG ([0009] each stream may then be mapped to the egress cards based on port distribution/selection determined by the hash rule. At the egress card, the stream may then be mapped to the appropriate LAG port.).
Regarding claim 5. Addanki and Selvaraj and Dropps teach The apparatus of claim 3, Addanki teaches wherein one or more bits of the LAG entry word identify one or more ports that are part of a particular LAG group. ([0009] each stream may then be mapped to the egress cards based on port distribution/selection determined by the hash rule. At the egress card, the stream may then be mapped to the appropriate LAG port.).
Regarding claim 12-14. Addanki and Selvaraj teach The computer-readable medium of claim 10, performing method in claim 3-5. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki in view of Dropps.
Regarding claim 16. Addanki teaches A method comprising: based on receipt of a multicast group identifier and hash value, selecting a port of a link aggregation group (LAG) based on access to multiple different tables ([0029] a hash rule 140 that divides the incoming data stream or traffic into multiple streams.) select a port of a link aggregation group (LAG) ([0029] In this embodiment, the data received at a port 130 of ingress line card 110a is hashed into eight streams that are mapped via Multicast Group ID (MGID) tables 120 to ports on egress line cards 112.) based on multiple tables ([0049] MGID table and port-map table) and
Addanki does not teach utilization of a single adder.
However, Dropps teaches
utilization of a single adder. (col 8, line 30 Multiplexer 272B selects another port's stored QOS bin 0 information 269A-269N as the “B” addend for adder 278A. The output 279A from adder 278A then becomes the “A” addend for the next adder in a series of adders′.)
in order to increase redundancy (col 6, line 5)
Addanki and Dropps are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Addanki with the technique of multiplexing routing in Dropps in order to increase redundancy.
Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki and Selvaraj, further in view of Selvaraj; Satish Kumar et al. US PGPUB 20210409293 A1.
Regarding claim 17. Addanki and Dropps teach The method of claim 16, Addanki and Dopps do not teach wherein a first table of the multiple different tables comprises indices for indexing into a second of the multiple tables.
However, Selvaraj teaches
wherein a first table of the multiple different tables comprises indices for indexing into a second of the multiple tables. ([0040] Should lookups on the ingress next hop table result in the identification of LAG group indices, those indices, in turn, may be used to perform additional lookups on a LAG table (see e.g., FIG. 2G).
[0053] Further, the LAG group index (248) may refer to a unique identifier (or pointer) (i.e., a reference) associated with a table entry in the LAG table (see e.g., FIG. 2G).)
in order to ensure network reliability by flooding the network. ([0016])
Addanki and Selvaraj are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Addanki with the technique of LAG indices in order to improve network reliability.
Regarding claim 18. Addanki and Dropps teaches The method of claim 16, they don’t teach wherein a first table of the multiple different tables comprises indices for indexing into a second table of the multiple different tables and the second table comprises multiple LAG words to use to construct a LAG entry word.
However, Selvaraj teaches
wherein: a first table of the multiple tables comprises indices for indexing into a second table of the multiple tables ([0040] Should lookups on the ingress next hop table result in the identification of LAG group indices, those indices, in turn, may be used to perform additional lookups on a LAG table (see e.g., FIG. 2G).) and the second table comprises multiple LAG words to use to construct a LAG entry word. ([0053] Further, the LAG group index (248) may refer to a unique identifier (or pointer) (i.e., a reference) associated with a table entry in the LAG table (see e.g., FIG. 2G).)
in order to ensure network reliability by flooding the network. ([0016])
Addanki and Selvaraj are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Addanki with the technique of LAG indices in order to improve network reliability.
Regarding claim 19. Addanki, Dropps and Selvaraj teach The method of claim 18, Addanki teaches wherein one or more of bits of the LAG entry word identify ports in the LAG. ([0009] each stream may then be mapped to the egress cards based on port distribution/selection determined by the hash rule. At the egress card, the stream may then be mapped to the appropriate LAG port.).
Regarding claim 20. Addanki, Dropps and Selvaraj teach The method of claim 18, wherein one or more of bits of the LAG entry word identify zero or more live ports in the LAG. ([0009] each stream may then be mapped to the egress cards based on port distribution/selection determined by the hash rule. At the egress card, the stream may then be mapped to the appropriate LAG port.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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 at 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights