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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-7, 10, and 12-23 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-6, 10, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 12-23 are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Previous Rejections Withdrawn
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 01/13/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10, 15-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0201380), in view of Doubleday et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373478), and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,479,437).
As per claim 1, Ma discloses a system for providing adaptive routing, the system comprising one or more circuits (Ma: paragraph 0044; components of an embodiment of the invention may be implemented by using a programmed general-purpose digital computer, by using application specific integrated circuits, programmable logic devices, or field programmable gate arrays, or by using a network of interconnected components and circuits…paragraph 0035; system for an adaptive configuration of the physical ports at a network device, based on the bandwidth load to minimize the power consumption) to:
determine, for a first port of a plurality of ports, a bandwidth for the first port (Ma: paragraph 0016; EtherChannel 104 connects physical ports 208a to physical port 208b…paragraph 0018; Comparison module 204a compares the bandwidth load at physical port 208a…paragraph 0024; comparison module 204 calculates the bandwidth load at the logical port of switch 102a) and a bandwidth history for the first port (Ma: paragraph 0021; comparison module 204 checks for stability of the bandwidth load for a predefined hold time. The checking for stability involves calculating moving average of the bandwidth load over the predefined hold time. The moving average is used as the bandwidth load);
use the bandwidth for the first port, the bandwidth history for the first port, a buffer utilization (Ma: paragraph 0018; Comparison module 204a compares the bandwidth load at physical port 208a with the value of activation threshold and the value of removal threshold…paragraph 0021; Other measures of bandwidth load are possible such as a measure of a percentage utilization of the total available bandwidth at the physical ports 208, a localized measure pertaining to utilization of a link, utilization of buffers in a device or devices, etc. Moreover, comparison module 204 checks for stability of the bandwidth load for a predefined hold time…The moving average is used as the bandwidth load), and a system activity (Ma: paragraph 0027; system will always keep two ports in an active state to preserve redundancy regardless of the bandwidth. Therefore the system has a minimum percentage of active ports).
However Ma does not explicitly mention a system activity to determine a risk factor for the first port; and compare the risk factor for the first port to a threshold.
However Doubleday teaches:
a system activity to determine a risk factor for the first port (Doubleday: paragraph 0053; A capacity risk factor may be determined by measuring a volume of real-time data flow through the network device compared to an operational limit for the network device. An operational limit for network device 140 may be provided to operational risk module 130 by a network administrator using workstation 120a); and
compare the risk factor for the first port to a threshold (Doubleday: paragraph 0053; A capacity risk factor may be determined by measuring a volume of real-time data flow through the network device compared to an operational limit for the network device. See also Ma: paragraph 0019; The comparison can be a simple numerical comparison to determine whether a value representing the bandwidth load is higher or lower or equal to a value of a threshold); and
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Doubleday with the teachings as in the modified Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect and analyze operational risk in a network environment by using risk factor in connection with network operating conditions (Doubleday: paragraph 0001).
However Ma and Doubleday do not explicitly mention increase or decrease a number associated with the first port based on comparing the risk factor for the first port to the threshold.
However Zhou teaches:
increase or decrease a number associated with the first port based on comparing the risk factor for the first port to the threshold (Zhou: col. 3, lines 9-17; A WCMP group associated with a forwarding device, such as a switch, includes the weights associated with the ports of the forwarding device. For example, the WCMP group {1, 2} indicates that the first port of the switch gets ⅓ of the total traffic while the second port gets ⅔ of the total traffic. The exemplary WCMP group {1, 2} may be reduced to {1, 1}. In the reduced WCMP group, the first port gets more traffic than before).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Zhou with the teachings as in the modified Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to adapt traffic distribution among the ports based on port weights while minimizing oversubscription and improving route convergence (Zhou: col. 1, lines 35-36 and col. 3, lines 27-28 and lines 54-56).
As per claim 2, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein increasing or decreasing the number associated with the first port results in a change in power consumption of the system (Zhou: col. 3, lines 9-17; A WCMP group associated with a forwarding device, such as a switch, includes the weights associated with the ports of the forwarding device. For example, the WCMP group {1, 2} indicates that the first port of the switch gets ⅓ of the total traffic while the second port gets ⅔ of the total traffic. The exemplary WCMP group {1, 2} may be reduced to {1, 1}. In the reduced WCMP group, the first port gets more traffic than before. See also Ma: paragraph 0026; The conversion is achieved by removing the selected active physical ports from the logical port and disabling hardware linked to the selected active physical port. In an embodiment of the present invention, the selected active physical ports are converted to standby physical ports 314 by switching off the power to the selected active physical ports).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 6, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system activity is a percentage of active ports (Ma: paragraph 0027; system will always keep two ports in an active state to preserve redundancy regardless of the bandwidth. Therefore the system has a minimum percentage of active ports).
As per claim 7, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the bandwidth history for the first port comprises a moving weighted average (Ma: paragraph 0021; moving average used to determine if ports are activated/removed. To the extent that a moving average can be seen as being different from a moving weighted average, Examiner takes official notice of a moving weighted average and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to use a moving weighted average in order to give more consideration to more recent values to ensure the data was trending in the correct direction).
As per claim 10, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are further to determine the risk factor is above the threshold (Doubleday: paragraph 0053; A capacity risk factor may be determined by measuring a volume of real-time data flow through the network device compared to an operational limit for the network device. See also Ma: paragraph 0019; The comparison can be a simple numerical comparison to determine whether a value representing the bandwidth load is higher or lower or equal to a value of a threshold. See also Ma: paragraph 0019; The comparison can be a simple numerical comparison to determine whether a value representing the bandwidth load is higher or lower or equal to a value of a threshold).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Ma also teaches a second port, as Ma teaches a plurality of ports (See at least paragraph 0008 and fig. 2; physical ports in an EtherChannel).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
As per claim 16, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of ports are eligible for adaptive routing (Ma: paragraph 0008 and fig. 2; physical ports in an EtherChannel…paragraph 0035; system for an adaptive configuration of the physical ports at a network device, based on the bandwidth load to minimize the power consumption).
As per claim 17, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are further to send a packet via one of the ports of the plurality of ports based at least in part on the number associated with the first port (Zhou: col. 3, lines 9-17; A WCMP group associated with a forwarding device, such as a switch, includes the weights associated with the ports of the forwarding device. For example, the WCMP group {1, 2} indicates that the first port of the switch gets ⅓ of the total traffic while the second port gets ⅔ of the total traffic. The exemplary WCMP group {1, 2} may be reduced to {1, 1}. In the reduced WCMP group, the first port gets more traffic than before).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 18, The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are further to determine the system activity (Ma: paragraph 0027; at least two of physical ports 208 are kept in an active state even if the bandwidth load is less than the removal threshold. This is done to preserve redundancy at low bandwidth load conditions) and a buffer utilization (Ma: paragraph 0021; Other measures of bandwidth load are possible such as a measure of a percentage utilization of the total available bandwidth at the physical ports 208, a localized measure pertaining to utilization of a link, utilization of buffers in a device or devices, etc. System considers buffer utilization).
With respect to claim 19, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Ma also teaches a computing system comprising one or more circuits (Ma: paragraphs 0014 and 0015; systems for power-efficient configuration of the physical ports at a switch in an EtherChannel…paragraph 0044; components of an embodiment of the invention may be implemented by using a programmed general-purpose digital computer, by using application specific integrated circuits, programmable logic devices, or field programmable gate arrays, or by using a network of interconnected components and circuits).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
With respect to claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Ma also teaches a switch comprising one or more circuits (Ma: fig. 2 and paragraphs 0014 and 0015; Environment 100 includes network devices switch 102a and switch 102b, and EtherChannel 104…Each Ethernet link is connected to a physical port at switch 102a to a physical port at link partner 102b).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
As per claim 23, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein packets are distributed between the plurality of ports based at least in part on the number associated with the first port (Zhou: col. 3, lines 9-17; A WCMP group associated with a forwarding device, such as a switch, includes the weights associated with the ports of the forwarding device. For example, the WCMP group {1, 2} indicates that the first port of the switch gets ⅓ of the total traffic while the second port gets ⅔ of the total traffic. The exemplary WCMP group {1, 2} may be reduced to {1, 1}. In the reduced WCMP group, the first port gets more traffic than before).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0201380), in view of Doubleday et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373478), in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,479,437), and further in view of Alasti et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,990,072).
As per claim 3, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1.
However the modified Ma does not explicitly mention wherein the number associated with the first port comprises a penalty of the first port.
However Alasti teaches:
wherein the number associated with the first port comprises a penalty of the first port (Alasti: col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 4; A first penalty for a weight vector entity associated with the first port is determined).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Alasti with the teachings as in the modified Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to use weighted arbitration scheduling in a switch fabric while adjusting weight values associated with links/ports and assessing penalties for non-backlogged links having relatively high weight values.
As per claim 4, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the first port is disabled based on the penalty of the first port (Alasti: col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 4; A first penalty for a weight vector entity associated with the first port is determined. See also Ma: paragraph 0026; the one or more selected active physical ports are converted to standby physical ports 314. The conversion is achieved by removing the selected active physical ports from the logical port and disabling hardware linked to the selected active physical port).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 5, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the first port is enabled based on the penalty of the first port (Alasti: col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 4; A first penalty for a weight vector entity associated with the first port is determined. See also Ma: paragraph 0031; changing a standby physical port to an active physical port if the bandwidth load is greater than the activation threshold).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0201380), in view of Doubleday et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373478), in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,479,437), and further in view of Bowser et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0002610).
As per claim 12, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1.
However the modified Ma does not explicitly teaches round robin.
However Bowser teaches:
wherein the first port is selected from among the plurality of ports using a round robin algorithm (Bowser: paragraphs 0102-0103; controller will activate ports to APs when appropriate. Conversely, when AP is to be powered down the controller will also put the related port into power saving mode…paragraphs 0075, 0097; Controller will activate APs in a round robin manner and wait to see which one a client device will want to use).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Ma with the round robin manner to wake communication channels in an ordered fashion.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0201380), in view of Doubleday et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373478), in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,479,437), and further in view of Hanson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0098840).
As per claim 13, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a respective number associated with each of the plurality of ports is increased or decreased (Zhou: col. 3, lines 9-17; A WCMP group associated with a forwarding device, such as a switch, includes the weights associated with the ports of the forwarding device. For example, the WCMP group {1, 2} indicates that the first port of the switch gets ⅓ of the total traffic while the second port gets ⅔ of the total traffic. The exemplary WCMP group {1, 2} may be reduced to {1, 1}. In the reduced WCMP group, the first port gets more traffic than before).
However the modified Ma does not explicitly mention consecutively in a loop.
However Hanson teaches:
consecutively in a loop (Hanson: paragraph 0143; The above process continues to loop until a "scheduling weight complete" test (block 404) is satisfied).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hanson with the teachings as in the modified Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to continue updating the scheduling weights in repeated iterations until a completion condition is satisfied (Hanson: paragraph 0143).
As per claim 14, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 13, wherein a sleep time occurs after increasing or decreasing the respective number associated with each of the plurality of ports before restarting the loop (Ma: paragraphs 0021-0023 and 0029; the system employs predefined hold time, up-hold time, down-hold time, on-time, and off-time in repeated port configuration operations, thereby teaching a timing interval before repeating the adjustment process).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0201380), in view of Doubleday et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0373478), in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,479,437), in view of Alasti et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,990,072), and further in view of Niestemski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0207818).
As per claim 21, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 3.
However the modified Ma does not explicitly mention wherein in response to decreasing the number the first port is removed from a list of penalized ports.
However Niestemski teaches:
wherein in response to decreasing the number the first port is removed from a list of penalized ports (Niestemski: paragraph 0145; The performance module 212 may receive from the input module the listing of any number of restricted storage ports to be excluded from the storage network traffic configuration process. See also paragraph 0105 and table 6; the individual score for each of any number of penalty rules for each of any number of storage ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove a storage port from the restricted/penalized listing when its associated penalty score decreases so that the port is no longer excluded from the configuration process).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Niestemski with the teachings as in the modified Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to perform high-speed data display without causing any trouble on foreground processing (Niestemski: paragraph 0001).
As per claim 22, the modified Ma teaches the system of claim 3.
However the modified Ma does not explicitly mention wherein in response to increasing the number the first port is added to a list of penalized ports.
However Niestemski teaches:
wherein in response to increasing the number the first port is added to a list of penalized ports (Niestemski: paragraph 0145; The performance module 212 may receive from the input module the listing of any number of restricted storage ports to be excluded from the storage network traffic configuration process. See also paragraph 0105 and table 6; the individual score for each of any number of penalty rules for each of any number of storage ports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add having an increased penalty score to the restricted/penalized listing so that the penalized port is excluded from the configuration process).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Niestemski with the teachings as in the modified Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to perform high-speed data display without causing any trouble on foreground processing (Niestemski: paragraph 0001).
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 KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights