DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment “in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device.” to the claim overcomes the 102 rejection in view of Arneja. In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully agrees. Arneja teaches on a validation window where data is measured which may be collected during the same validation window. However, Arneja does not explicitly teach on the collection being initiated as recited in the amendment. As the amendment to the claim changes the scope of the invention. An updated search was conducted and a prior art was discovered to read on the limitation: JP 2002300206 A (Nagao)
Arneja still teaches on most of the limitations of the independent claims. Arneja teaches on measuring distribution information within a validation window ([0016]) and that the distribution information may be received during this validation window ([0017]). However, Arneja does not explicitly teach that in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device.
Nagao teaches that in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device. See Nagao, [0043] A specific value is set in advance in the network information collection/determination unit 12 regarding resource allocation. This specific value is used as a threshold (threshold) for determining the start/end of the collection of the network operating state information. [0049] In the network information collection unit 13, when the monitoring process is activated (step S41), periodical collection of the network operation status information of the corresponding monitoring point is started (step S42). The network operation status information collected by the network information collecting unit 13 is stored in the network database 16 as network trend information. [0051] The network information collection/decision unit 12 is provided with a specific value for the number of packets and the number of bytes passing through the packet buffer.)
It would have been obvious to modify Arneja per Nagao as it would allow the modified system to provide periodic targeted collection of data allowing for efficiency, see Nagao [0022].
Please see rejection below:
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10-13, 18, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0239575 A1 (Arneja) in view of JP 2002300206 A (Nagao).
Claim(s) 3-6, 9, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0239575 A1 (Arneja) in view of JP 2002300206 A (Nagao) further in view of US 2002/0188749 A1 (Gaur).
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0239575 A1 (Arneja) in view of JP 2002300206 A (Nagao) further in view of US 2015/0003247 A1 (Mejia).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10-13, 18, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0239575 A1 (Arneja) in view of JP 2002300206 A (Nagao).
Regarding Claim 1:
Arneja teaches A method for controlling operation of a network device, the method comprising:
determining, at the network device, a load metric (ie. latency queue measurement) corresponding to a processing load of the network device; ([0011] The queue depth monitoring technology (QDMT) is implemented on a per-network device basis and monitors the number of packets that are present in egress queues on network devices. [0015] The latency measurements (which are derived from the timestamps in the INT data) are used to develop a latency model of the network. The latency measurement is then associated with the identified egress queue. The result is a latency model that reflects the average latency of egress queues on the network devices in the network. [0040] Aggregated information may include distribution of the size of the packets.)
in response to determining that the load metric (ie. latency measurement) meets a first threshold (ie. outside of expected range), initiating, at the network device, measuring distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device ([0016] In addition to using the latency measurements to determine the latency values, the latency measurement(s) is compared to the corresponding latency value in the latency model to determine whether a latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. If this occurs, then the network monitoring system checks to see if it has received any information from the QDMT for the egress queue on which the latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window. [0040] Aggregated information may include distribution of the size of the packets. The information and/or data that the sampling agent sends to the network monitoring agent may be collectively referred to as sampling data.) beginning at a time (ie. beginning/start of validation window T±x seconds) corresponding to when the load metric was determined to have met the first threshold (ie. (iii) time of congestion); ([0016] The validation window is a period of time that includes: (i) the time during which the timestamps were received by the network monitoring system, (ii) the time during which the latency measurements were calculated based on the timestamps, and (iii) the time during which an egress queue was initially identified as being congested (see e.g., FIG. 3). For example, if the timestamps were received at time T then the validation window may be, e.g.: (i) T ±x seconds and/or (ii) T to T +y seconds.)
ending (ie. end of validation window), at the network device, measuring the distribution information regarding the distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device; ([0016] The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window. The validation window is a period of time that includes: (i) the time during which the timestamps were received by the network monitoring system, (ii) the time during which the latency measurements were calculated based on the timestamps, and (iii) the time during which an egress queue was initially identified as being congested. [0040] Aggregated information may include distribution of the size of the packets.) The measuring of the distribution information is during the validation window.
and using, at the network device, the distribution information to control the network device. ([0017] If information is received from the QDMT during the validation window and such information specifies the egress queue that triggered the review of information from QDMT that was received during the validation window, then the network monitoring system determines that there was in-fact congestion in the egress queue. [0018] The network monitoring system may initiate reconfiguration of one or more network devices to modify the path that one or more of the impacted flows takes through the network. In this manner, the network monitoring system may reduce current congestion and/or mitigate future congestion.)
Arneja teaches on measuring distribution information within a validation window ([0016]) and that the distribution information may be received during this validation window ([0017]). However, Arneja does not explicitly teach that in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device.
Nagao teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a network design method for proposing a change in network operation method based on the network configuration and operating state, [0001].
Nagao also teaches that in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device. ([0043] A specific value is set in advance in the network information collection/determination unit 12 regarding resource allocation. This specific value is used as a threshold (threshold) for determining the start/end of the collection of the network operating state information. [0049] In the network information collection unit 13, when the monitoring process is activated (step S41), periodical collection of the network operation status information of the corresponding monitoring point is started (step S42). The network operation status information collected by the network information collecting unit 13 is stored in the network database 16 as network trend information. [0051] The network information collection/decision unit 12 is provided with a specific value for the number of packets and the number of bytes passing through the packet buffer.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja per Nagao to include in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide periodic targeted collection of data allowing for efficiency, see Nagao [0022].
Regarding Claim 12:
Arneja teaches A network device (Fig 5, the computing device (500)), comprising: a plurality of network interfaces ([0088] the communication interface (512) may include an integrated circuit for connecting the computing device (500) to a network); a packet processor ([0088] The computer processor(s) (502) may be an integrated circuit for processing instructions.) configured to process data units received via the plurality of network interfaces to determine network interfaces, among the plurality of network interfaces, that are to transmit the data units;
first circuitry ([0024] The physical device may correspond to a computing device that includes one or more general purpose processor(s) and one or more application-specific processor(s)) that is configured to
determine a load metric (ie. latency queue measurement) corresponding to a processing load of the network device; ([0011] The queue depth monitoring technology (QDMT) is implemented on a per-network device basis and monitors the number of packets that are present in egress queues on network devices. [0015] The latency measurements (which are derived from the timestamps in the INT data) are used to develop a latency model of the network. The latency measurement is then associated with the identified egress queue. The result is a latency model that reflects the average latency of egress queues on the network devices in the network. [0040] Aggregated information may include distribution of the size of the packets.)
second circuitry ([0024] The physical device may correspond to a computing device that includes one or more general purpose processor(s) and one or more application-specific processor(s)) that is configured to:
in response to determining that the load metric (ie. latency measurement) meets a first threshold (ie. outside of expected range), initiate measuring distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets processed by the network device ([0016] In addition to using the latency measurements to determine the latency values, the latency measurement(s) is compared to the corresponding latency value in the latency model to determine whether a latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. If this occurs, then the network monitoring system checks to see if it has received any information from the QDMT for the egress queue on which the latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window. [0040] Aggregated information may include distribution of the size of the packets. The information and/or data that the sampling agent sends to the network monitoring agent may be collectively referred to as sampling data.) beginning at a time (ie. beginning/start of validation window T±x seconds) corresponding to when the load metric was determined to have met the first threshold (ie. (iii) time of congestion); ([0016] The validation window is a period of time that includes: (i) the time during which the timestamps were received by the network monitoring system, (ii) the time during which the latency measurements were calculated based on the timestamps, and (iii) the time during which an egress queue was initially identified as being congested (see e.g., FIG. 3). For example, if the timestamps were received at time T then the validation window may be, e.g.: (i) T ±x seconds and/or (ii) T to T +y seconds.)
and end (ie. end of validation window) measuring the distribution information regarding the distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device; ([0040] Aggregated information may include distribution of the size of the packets. [0016] The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window. The validation window is a period of time that includes: (i) the time during which the timestamps were received by the network monitoring system, (ii) the time during which the latency measurements were calculated based on the timestamps, and (iii) the time during which an egress queue was initially identified as being congested, see e.g., FIG. 3. For example, if the timestamps were received at time T then the validation window may be, e.g.: (i) T ±x seconds and/or (ii) T to T +y seconds.). The measuring of the distribution information is during the validation window.
and a controller (ie. network monitoring system) configured to use the distribution information to control the network device. ([0017] If information is received from the QDMT during the validation window and such information specifies the egress queue that triggered the review of information from QDMT that was received during the validation window, then the network monitoring system determines that there was in-fact congestion in the egress queue. [0018] The network monitoring system may initiate reconfiguration of one or more network devices to modify the path that one or more of the impacted flows takes through the network. In this manner, the network monitoring system may reduce current congestion and/or mitigate future congestion.)
Arneja teaches on measuring distribution information within a validation window ([0016]) and that the distribution information may be received during this validation window ([0017]). However, Arneja does not explicitly teach that in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device.
Nagao teaches that in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device. ([0043] A specific value is set in advance in the network information collection/determination unit 12 regarding resource allocation. This specific value is used as a threshold (threshold) for determining the start/end of the collection of the network operating state information. [0049] In the network information collection unit 13, when the monitoring process is activated (step S41), periodical collection of the network operation status information of the corresponding monitoring point is started (step S42). The network operation status information collected by the network information collecting unit 13 is stored in the network database 16 as network trend information. [0051] The network information collection/decision unit 12 is provided with a specific value for the number of packets and the number of bytes passing through the packet buffer.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja per Nagao to include in response to determining that the load metric meets a first threshold, initiating, at the network device, collection of distribution information regarding a distribution of sizes of packets being processed by the network device. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide periodic targeted collection of data allowing for efficiency, see Nagao [0022].
Regarding Claim 2:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 1 as described.
Arneja teaches further comprising: starting a timer (ie. beginning of validation window) of the network device in response to determining that the load metric meets the first threshold; ([0016] In addition to using the latency measurements to determine the latency values, the latency measurement(s) is compared to the corresponding latency value in the latency model to determine whether a latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. If this occurs, then the network monitoring system checks to see if it has received any information from the QDMT for the egress queue on which the latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window.)
wherein ending the measurement of the distribution information comprises ending the measuring of the distribution information in response to the timer expiring (ie. end of validation window). ([0016] The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window. The validation window is a period of time that includes: (i) the time during which the timestamps were received by the network monitoring system, (ii) the time during which the latency measurements were calculated based on the timestamps, and (iii) the time during which an egress queue was initially identified as being congested, see e.g., FIG. 3. For example, if the timestamps were received at time T then the validation window may be, e.g.: (i) T ±x seconds and/or (ii) T to T +y seconds.). The measuring of the distribution information is during the validation window.
Arneja teaches on measuring distribution information within a validation window ([0016]) and that the distribution information may be received during this validation window ([0017]). However, Arneja does not explicitly teach ending the collection of the distribution information comprises ending the measuring of the distribution information in response to the timer expiring.
Nagao teaches ending the collection of the distribution information comprises ending the measuring of the distribution information in response to the timer expiring. ([0043] A specific value is set in advance in the network information collection/determination unit 12 regarding resource allocation. This specific value is used as a threshold (threshold) for determining the start/end of the collection of the network operating state information.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja per Nagao to include ending the collection of the distribution information comprises ending the measuring of the distribution information in response to the timer expiring. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide periodic targeted collection of data allowing for efficiency, see Nagao [0022].
Regarding Claim 7:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 1 as described.
Arneja teaches wherein using the distribution information to control the network device comprises: moving, at the network device, transmission of a flow of packets from a first port of the network device to a second port (ie. another port) of the network device based on the distribution information. ([0029] The switch chip may include egress and ingress ports that may connect to ports on the network device. Each port may or may not be connected to another device on a network device on the network (104) (e.g., a server, a switch, a router, etc.). The network device may be configured to receive packets via the ports and determine whether to: (i) drop the packet; (ii) process the packet in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure; and/or (iii) send the packet, based on the processing, out another port on the network device.)
Regarding Claim 10:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 1 as described.
Arneja teaches wherein using the distribution information to control the network device comprises: adjusting an algorithm (ie. corrective action to modify path/buffer allocation) corresponding to buffer allocation and/or use of buffers based on the distribution information. ([0038] The queue depth agent (202) may periodically poll (or query) the packet processing components to determine whether any egress queue exceeds the corresponding queue depth threshold. When the queue depth agent determines that any egress queue exceeds the corresponding queue depth threshold, the queue depth agent may generate and send a queue depth report to the network monitoring system. [0073][0079] The corrective action may include determining which flows are impacted by the congestion (i.e., the flows identified in Step 304) and then initiating the modification of one or more network devices in the network to modify that path that one or more of the packets associated with the flows taken through the network. In this manner, packets associated with one or more of the impacted flows may take a different path through the network, thereby potentially reducing future congestion on the egress queue (i.e., the egress queue for which the determination was made in Step 300).)
Regarding Claim 11:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 1 as described.
Arneja teaches further comprising at least one of: i) sending, by the network device, one or more flow control messages (ie. notifications) to another network device (ie. network administrator device) based on the distribution information; and ii) marking, by the network device, one or more packets to be sent to another network device based on the distribution information, the marking of the one or more packets (ie. indicating congestion) to notify the other network device (ie. network administrator device) that the network device is experiencing congestion. ([0079] In Step 306, remediation action is initiated. The remediation action may include generating and issuing a congestion notification to, e.g., a network administrator. The congestion notification may include, e.g., information that identifies the network device, and the egress queue (i.e., the egress queue for which the determination was made in Step 300), the flow tracking information obtained in Step 304 and an indication of whether the congestion determination was validated (i.e., a queue depth report specifying the egress queue is/was received in the validation window).)
Regarding Claim 13:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 12 as described.
Arneja teaches wherein the second circuitry includes a timer (ie. validation window), and wherein the second circuitry is configured to: start the timer (ie. beginning of validation window) in response to determining that the load metric meets the first threshold; ([0016] In addition to using the latency measurements to determine the latency values, the latency measurement(s) is compared to the corresponding latency value in the latency model to determine whether a latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. If this occurs, then the network monitoring system checks to see if it has received any information from the QDMT for the egress queue on which the latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range. The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window.)
end measuring the distribution information in response to the timer expiring (ie. end of validation window). ([0016] The network monitoring system performs a check across a validation window. The validation window is a period of time that includes: (i) the time during which the timestamps were received by the network monitoring system, (ii) the time during which the latency measurements were calculated based on the timestamps, and (iii) the time during which an egress queue was initially identified as being congested.) The measuring of the distribution information is during the validation window.
Regarding Claim 18:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 12 as described.
Arneja teaches wherein the plurality of network interfaces includes a first network interface and a second network interface, and wherein the controller is configured to: move transmission of a flow of packets from the first network interface to the second network interface (ie. another port) based on the distribution information. ([0029] The switch chip may include egress and ingress ports that may connect to ports on the network device. Each port may or may not be connected to another device on a network device on the network (104) (e.g., a server, a switch, a router, etc.). The network device may be configured to receive packets via the ports and determine whether to: (i) drop the packet; (ii) process the packet in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure; and/or (iii) send the packet, based on the processing, out another port on the network device.)
Regarding Claim 21:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 12 as described.
Arneja teaches the controller is configured to: adjust an algorithm (ie. corrective action to modify path/buffer allocation) corresponding to buffer allocation and/or use of buffers based on the distribution information. ([0038] The queue depth agent (202) may periodically poll ( or query) the packet processing components to determine whether any egress queue exceeds the corresponding queue depth threshold. When the queue depth agent determines that any egress queue exceeds the corresponding queue depth threshold, the queue depth agent may generate and send a queue depth report to the network monitoring system. [0073][0079] The corrective action may include determining which flows are impacted by the congestion (i.e., the flows identified in Step 304) and then initiating the modification of one or more network devices in the network to modify that path that one or more of the packets associated with the flows taken through the network. In this manner, packets associated with one or more of the impacted flows may take a different path through the network, thereby potentially reducing future congestion on the egress queue (i.e., the egress queue for which the determination was made in Step 300).)
Regarding Claim 22:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 12 as described.
Arneja teaches wherein the controller is configured to at least one of: i) control the network device to send one or more flow control messages (ie. notifications) to another network device (ie. network administrator device) based on the distribution information; and ii) control the network device to mark one or more packets to be sent to another network device (ie. network administrator device) based on the distribution information, the marking (ie. indicating congestion) of the one or more packets to notify the other network device that the network device is experiencing congestion. ([0079] In Step 306, remediation action is initiated. The remediation action may include generating and issuing a congestion notification to, e.g., a network administrator. The congestion notification may include, e.g., information that identifies the network device, and the egress queue (i.e., the egress queue for which the determination was made in Step 300), the flow tracking information obtained in Step 304 and an indication of whether the congestion determination was validated (i.e., a queue depth report specifying the egress queue is/was received in the validation window).)
Claim(s) 3-6, 9, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0239575 A1 (Arneja) in view of JP 2002300206 A (Nagao) further in view of US 2002/0188749 A1 (Gaur).
Regarding Claims 3, 14:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the inventions of claims 1, 12 as described.
Arneja teaches on utilizing thresholds ([0016][0038]) and start/end measuring by using a validation window. However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on wherein ending the collection of the distribution information is in response to determining that the load metric meets a second threshold.
Gaur teaches, in the same field of endeavor, methods for dynamically tuning the interrupt delay of a network adapter in response to variations in incoming network traffic loads, Abstract.
Gaur also teaches wherein ending the collection of the distribution information is in response to determining that the load metric meets a second threshold. ([0032] When the rate of incoming network traffic falls outside of this range, then the interrupt delay may again be adjusted accordingly, and the upper and lower thresholds may once again be adjusted. Following adjustment of the value of the upper and lower thresholds, the process 42 ends, awaiting the next monitoring input. [0034] If the incoming network traffic load is greater than or equal to the lower threshold ( as determined by the comparison at block 54), then the process 42 ends, awaiting the next monitoring input.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Arneja per Gaur to include wherein ending the collection of the distribution information is in response to determining that the load metric meets a second threshold. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide comparison between multiple levels of thresholds, giving a finer granularity to the analysis.
Regarding Claims 4, 15:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao & Gaur) teaches the inventions of claims 3, 14 as described.
Arneja teaches determining that the load metric meets the first threshold comprises determining that the load metric is above the first threshold; ([0016] In addition to using the latency measurements to determine the latency values, the latency measurement(s) is compared to the corresponding latency value in the latency model to determine whether a latency measurement has deviated from the latency value outside an expected range.)
Arneja teaches on utilizing thresholds ([0016][0038]). However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on determining that the load metric meets the second threshold comprises at least one of i) determining that the load metric is equal to the second threshold, and ii) determining that the load metric is below the second threshold.
Gaur teaches determining that the load metric meets the first threshold comprises at least one of i) determining that the load metric is equal to the first threshold, and ii) determining that the load metric is above the first threshold; ([0034] If the incoming network traffic load is greater than or equal to the lower threshold (as determined by the comparison at block 54), then the process 42 ends, awaiting the next monitoring input.)
and determining that the load metric meets the second threshold comprises at least one of i) determining that the load metric is equal to the second threshold, and ii) determining that the load metric is below the second threshold. ([0033] Where the incoming network traffic load is less than or equal to the upper threshold, as determined by the comparison at block 46, the process 42 proceeds to compare (see, e.g., reference numeral 54) the incoming network traffic load with the lower threshold.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Arneja per Gaur to include determining that the load metric meets the second threshold comprises at least one of i) determining that the load metric is equal to the second threshold, and ii) determining that the load metric is below the second threshold. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide comparison between multiple levels of thresholds, giving a finer granularity to the analysis.
Regarding Claims 5, 16:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao & Gaur) teaches the inventions of claims 4, 15 as described.
Arneja teaches on utilizing thresholds ([0016][0038]). However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on wherein the first threshold is equal to the second threshold.
Gaur teaches wherein the first threshold is equal to the second threshold. ([0033] Where the incoming network traffic load is less than or equal to the upper threshold, as determined by the comparison at block 46, the process 42 proceeds to compare (see, e.g., reference numeral 54) the incoming network traffic load with the lower threshold. [0034] If the incoming network traffic load is greater than or equal to the lower threshold (as determined by the comparison at block 54), then the process 42 ends, awaiting the next monitoring input.). If the load metric is equal to the lower threshold and equal to the upper threshold, then the lower threshold=upper threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Arneja per Gaur to include wherein the first threshold is equal to the second threshold. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide comparison between multiple levels of thresholds, giving a finer granularity to the analysis.
Regarding Claims 6, 17:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao & Gaur) teaches the inventions of claims 4, 15 as described.
Arneja teaches on utilizing thresholds ([0016][0038]). However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on wherein the first threshold is above the second threshold.
Gaur teaches wherein the first threshold is above the second threshold. ([0033] Where the incoming network traffic load is less than or equal to the upper threshold, as determined by the comparison at block 46, the process 42 proceeds to compare (see, e.g., reference numeral 54) the incoming network traffic load with the lower threshold. [0034] If the incoming network traffic load is greater than or equal to the lower threshold (as determined by the comparison at block 54), then the process 42 ends, awaiting the next monitoring input.). If the load metric is greater than the lower threshold (threshold 2) and is equal to the upper threshold (threshold 1) then the first threshold is above the second threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Arneja per Gaur to include wherein the first threshold is above the second threshold. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide comparison between multiple levels of thresholds, giving a finer granularity to the analysis.
Regarding Claims 9, 20:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the inventions of claims 1, 12 as described.
Arneja teaches modifying path direction of the packets in order to reduce congestion ([0079]). However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on adjusting a processing rate at which the network device processes packets based on the distribution information.
Gaur teaches adjusting a processing rate (ie. interrupt delay) at which the network device processes packets based on the distribution information. ([0035] When the rate of incoming network traffic falls outside of this range, then the interrupt delay may again be adjusted accordingly, and the lower and upper thresholds may once again be adjusted.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Nagao per Gaur to include adjusting a processing rate at which the network device processes packets based on the distribution information. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide ensured remediation by including data rate adjustment along with rerouting capabilities.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0239575 A1 (Arneja) in view of JP 2002300206 A (Nagao) further in view of US 2015/0003247 A1 (Mejia).
Regarding Claim 8:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 1 as described.
Arneja teaches on modifying path direction of the packets in order to reduce congestion ([0079]). However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on wherein using the distribution information to control the network device comprises: changing, at the network device, storing packets in a first queue of the network device to storing packets in a second queue of the network device based on the distribution information.
Mejia teaches, in the same field of endeavor, Methods and apparatus relating to techniques for controlling resource utilization with adaptive routing, Abstract.
Mejia also teaches wherein using the distribution information to control the network device comprises: changing, at the network device, storing packets in a first queue of the network device to storing packets in a second queue of the network device based on the distribution information. ([0030] Fig 3, Output Buffers with Output Ports 308. Buffers (such as input buffers 302 and output buffers 304) store messages that are transmitted across the routing logic 150. The routing unit logic 306 implements the routing function by selecting an output port 308 for an incoming packet at an input port 310. [0055] The selection function ( e.g., operation 608 of FIG. 6) in routing logic 150 is shown in the next flow diagram of FIG. 8. The method of FIG. 8 checks for the existence of congestion in output port 1 ( e.g., which refers to the output port that provides adaptivity) and if detected, returns the deterministic port as the winner, nullifying any possible adaptivity on the route.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Arneja per Mejia to include wherein using the distribution information to control the network device comprises: changing, at the network device, storing packets in a first queue of the network device to storing packets in a second queue of the network device based on the distribution information. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide assurance of remediation by including internal rerouting capabilities as well as external.
Regarding Claim 19:
Arneja (as modified by Nagao) teaches the invention of claim 12 as described.
Arneja teaches on modifying path direction of the packets in order to reduce congestion ([0079]). However, Arneja (as modified by Nagao) is silent on further comprising: a plurality of queues to store packets processed by the network device, the plurality of queues including a first queue and a second queue; wherein the controller is configured to: change storing packets in the first queue to a storing packets in the second queue based on the distribution information.
Mejia teaches on a plurality of queues to store packets processed by the network device, the plurality of queues including a first queue and a second queue; wherein the controller is configured to: change storing packets in the first queue to a storing packets in the second queue based on the distribution information. ([0030] Fig 3, Output Buffers with Output Ports 308. Buffers (such as input buffers 302 and output buffers 304) store messages that are transmitted across the routing logic 150. The routing unit logic 306 implements the routing function by selecting an output port 308 for an incoming packet at an input port 310. [0055] The selection function ( e.g., operation 608 of FIG. 6) in routing logic 150 is shown in the next flow diagram of FIG. 8. The method of FIG. 8 checks for the existence of congestion in output port 1 ( e.g., which refers to the output port that provides adaptivity) and if detected, returns the deterministic port as the winner, nullifying any possible adaptivity on the route.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Arneja (as modified by Nagao) by modifying Arneja per Mejia to include further comprising: a plurality of queues to store packets processed by the network device, the plurality of queues including a first queue and a second queue; wherein the controller is configured to: change storing packets in the first queue to a storing packets in the second queue based on the distribution information. It would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide assurance of remediation by including internal rerouting capabilities as well as external.
Conclusion & Contact Information
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 RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454