DETAILED ACTION
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Amendment date 03/26/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6 and claim 1 line 10 recites multiple “and” in the claim language. Examiner suggests removing the first phrase “and” to make claim language clearest and more concise. Similar issue exists in claim 9 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11,13, 15, 17-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singal et al. (US 2020/0252331 A1) in view of Gunjal et al . (US 2017/0070453 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Singal teaches an aggregated port of a centralized software defined network (SDN) environment comprising:
one or more data lanes adapted to handle data traffic (slave switch devices have multiple links 708-718 that handle data traffic between slave switch devices 704a and 704b and slave switch device using multiple aggregated ports 708a-708b on each of the slave switch device 704a and 704b see Singal: Fig.7; ¶[0045-0046]]);
one or more ports operatively coupled to the one or more data lanes (each port 712a-718 and 708 are connect between slave switch devices and server devices or inter-chassis link (ICL) 708 see Singal: Fig.7; ¶[0046]), wherein the one or more ports are aggregated using an aggregated switching model (ICLs may be provided using multiple respective aggregated ports on each of the slave switch devices 704a and 704b using auto-LAG configuration engine 901 for switching see Singal: ¶[0046]); and
operatively coupled to the one or more ports and adapted for external connection (port hardware 902 that configure to perform Auto-LAG configuration for in-band and out-of-band connection “the switching fabric engine 304 in the switch device 300 has been replaced with the auto-LAG configuration engine 901 in the slave switch device 900 that may be provided via the configuration of the switch device 300 as a slave switch device in the manner discussed above to provide port hardware 902 that is configured to perform the functionality of the port hardware, auto-LAG configuration engine” see Singal: ¶[0050];Fig.9).
Singal does not explicitly teaches a data lane layer associated with data transfer requirement, a port layer and a unitary interface to provide a single external connection point for external connection, wherein, in an operative state, only the unitary interface is visible to a user, and the one or more ports and the one or data lanes are obscured from the user, wherein the aggregated port is configured using an SDN controller.
However, Gunjal teaches a data lane layer associated with data transfer requirement (link aggregator port 310 receiving ports from Ethernet interface 305 port 0 and port 1 see Gunjal: Fig.3; ¶[0021-0022]), a port layer and a unitary interface to provide a single external connection point for external connection, wherein, in an operative state, only the unitary interface is visible to a user, and the one or more ports and the one or data lanes are obscured from the user (bonded single interface for connect to external connection (integration bridge) with distinct MAC address and port and port and data path are inside the computer system 105 “the link aggregator 205 receives a selection of one or more network interfaces of the physical host to bond to a single network interface” see Gunjal: ¶[0024]; Fig.1; ¶[0021]), wherein the aggregated port is configured using an SDN controller (aggregator port (link aggregator) configured using virtual multilayer switch execute on a network host and receive packets from a network “the virtual multilayer switch 110 is a software-based distributed switching stack for the cloud computing network” see Gunjal: Fig.1; ¶[0016]) in order to aggregate the selected network interfaces into a bonded network interface having a first port (see Gunjal: ¶[0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Signal to include (or to use, etc.) the a data lane layer associated with data transfer requirement, a port layer and a unitary interface to provide a single external connection point for external connection, wherein, in an operative state, only the unitary interface is visible to a user, and the one or more ports and the one or data lanes are obscured from the user, , wherein the aggregated port is configured using an SDN controller as taught by Gunjal in order to aggregate the selected network interfaces into a bonded network interface having a first port (see Gunjal: ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Singal further teaches wherein the aggregated port is operatively coupled to a first device via the unitary interface (the aggregated port 708a coupled to slave device 708a using port hardware 902 “the slave switch devices 704a and 704b are coupled together via an Inter-Chassis Link (ICL) 708 that is illustrated as a link provided between respective ports 708a and 708b on the on the slave switch devices 704a and 704b, but one of skill in the art in possession of the present disclosure will recognize that ICLs may be provided using multiple respective aggregated ports on each of the slave switch devices 704a and 704b” see Singal: ¶[0046]; Fig.7; Fig.9).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 3 as described hereinabove. Singal further teaches wherein the first device is a host device (endhost device couple to slave switch device see Singal: ¶[0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Singal further teaches wherein the one or more ports are operatively coupled to one or more data lanes such that each port is operatively coupled to a corresponding data lane (each port 708a, 712a ,714a, 716a, 718a is operating over corresponding links 708, 712, 714, 716 or 718 see Singal: ¶[0046]; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Singal further teaches wherein the one or more ports are operatively coupled to one or more data lanes such that each port is operatively coupled to two or more data lanes (each port 708a, 712a ,714a, 716a, 718a is operating over corresponding links 708, 712, 714, 716 or 718 see Singal: ¶[0046]; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Singal further teaches wherein the one or more ports operate independently of one another (each port 708a, 712a ,714a, 716a, 718a is operating over corresponding links 708, 712, 714, 716 or 718 which is independent link see Singal: ¶[0046]; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 9, Singal teaches a system for aggregating ports in a centralized software defined network (SDN) environment, comprising:
a first device (slave switch device 704a see Singal: Fig.7); and
a port aggregation module operatively coupled to the first device (Port hardware 902 couple to slave switch device 900 see Fig.9), wherein the port aggregation module (ICLs may be provided using multiple respective aggregated ports on each of the slave switch devices 704a and 704b using auto-LAG configuration engine 901 for switching see Singal: ¶[0046]) is to:
receive data transfer requirements associated with data communication to a second device (Slave switch 900 receive auto LAG configuration data from master device 801, where configuration data include information to configure ports 716a and 718a and service device identifier see Singal: ¶[0055]; ¶0053]);
generate an aggregated switching model based on at least the data transfer requirements (create LAG configuration engine based on) the LAG instructions see Singal: ¶[0055]); and
configure, using an SDN controller, an aggregated port to facilitate the transfer of data to the second device based on the aggregated switching model (master device match the server device 710 and determine to switching “The master switch device 702 may then match the server device 710 to a server device profile stored in its switching fabric database 306 (slave switch devices configure links to endhost device as part of LAG 1010 see Singal: Fig.10; ¶[0059]).
Singal does not explicitly teaches wherein the data transfer requirements are associated with data communication to a second device, and wherein the aggregated port is configured comprises a unitary interface adapted to provide a single external connection point for external connection and wherein, in an operative state, only the unitary interface is visible to a user, and the one or more ports and the one or data lanes are obscured from the user.
However, Gunjal teaches the wherein the data transfer requirements are associated with data communication to a second device (link aggregator port 310 receiving ports from Ethernet interface 305 port 0 and port 1 see Gunjal: Fig.3; ¶[0021-0022]), and wherein the aggregated port is configured comprises a unitary interface adapted to provide a single external connection point for external connection (bonded single interface for connect to external connection (integration bridge) with distinct MAC address and port and port and data path are inside the computer system 105 “the link aggregator 205 receives a selection of one or more network interfaces of the physical host to bond to a single network interface” see Gunjal: ¶[0024]; Fig.1; ¶[0021]) in order to aggregate the selected network interfaces into a bonded network interface having a first port (see Gunjal: ¶[0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Signal to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the data transfer requirements are associated with data communication to a second device, and wherein the aggregated port is configured comprises a unitary interface adapted to provide a single external connection point for external connection and wherein, in an operative state, only the unitary interface is visible to a user, and the one or more ports and the one or data lanes are obscured from the user as taught by Gunjal in order to aggregate the selected network interfaces into a bonded network interface having a first port (see Gunjal: ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 9 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 15 recites a method of aggregating port that perform the same functionalities as the system of claim 9 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 1 as described hereinabove. Gunjal further teaches wherein the aggregated switching model defines rules for each port of the one or more ports (bonded network interface having a first port and network bridge connected to integration bridge via second port “aggregating the selected network interfaces into a bonded network interface having a first port. The first port is associated with a network bridge having a second port. The network bridge is connected with an integration bridge of a virtual multilayer switch via the second port” see Gunjal: ¶[0004]) in order to aggregate the selected network interfaces into a bonded network interface having a first port (see Gunjal: ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as claim 21 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as claim 21 as set forth hereinabove.
Claims 2, 10, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singal et al. (US 2020/0252331 A1) in view of Gunjal et al . (US 2017/0070453 A1) and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0329525 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Singal taught the aggregated port of claim 1 as described hereinabove. The modified Singal further teaches wherein the aggregated switching model defines an aggregation topology associated with the aggregation of the one or more ports (each switch device management port on the communication system 308 see Singal: ¶[0028]; Fig.3).
The modified Singal does not explicitly teaches wherein the aggregated switching model comprises logical parameters and physical parameters.
However, Lu teaches the wherein the aggregated switching model comprises logical parameters and physical parameters (link aggregation group hash value based characteristic parameter of a traffic flow and member port and characteristics parameter also include destination/source IP address see Lu: ¶[0056]) in order to perform load balancing on a plurality of member ports in a link aggregation group (see Lu: ¶[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of the modified Singal to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the aggregated switching model comprises logical parameters and physical parameters as taught by Lu in order to perform load balancing on a plurality of member ports in a link aggregation group (see Lu: ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Singal taught the system of claim 9 as descried hereinabove. The modified Singal does not explicitly teaches wherein the one or more data transfer requirements comprises at least a bandwidth requirement.
However, Lu teaches the wherein the one or more data transfer requirements comprises at least a bandwidth requirement (the loads on the member ports in the link aggregation group are balanced, and the network device can meet a requirement of a high bandwidth see Lu: ¶[0044]; ¶[0056]) in order to perform load balancing on a plurality of member ports in a link aggregation group (see Lu: ¶[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of the modified Singal to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the one or more data transfer requirements comprises at least a bandwidth requirement as taught by Lu in order to perform load balancing on a plurality of member ports in a link aggregation group (see Lu: ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 14 as set forth hereinabove.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
June 13, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights