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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 4/6/2026.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claim 1, 8 and 15 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) a filed on 4/6/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
a. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 11)
“The Office Action relies on Becker for time-based removal of stale entries and on Gottumukkula for detection of disconnection. Respectfully, neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed temporal framework.
Becker discloses periodic removal of stale data entries within a data store to improve data management operations. However, Becker's periodic cleanup is not tied to any specific event and does not involve associating a timestamp with a detected disconnection or measuring an expiration period from such an event. Becker's operations are global and periodic, not event-driven or device-specific. As such, Becker fails to disclose or suggest an expiration period that is measured from a timestamp corresponding
to a disconnection event.
Gottumukkula discloses detecting that a networked device has been uncoupled from a Fibre Channel network and modifying zoning information accordingly. However, the modifications in Gottumukkula are performed in response to the detected disconnection itself, without any delay or temporal qualification based on elapsed time.
Gottumukkula does not record a timestamp for the disconnection, does not measure an expiration period from that timestamp, and does not require that the device remain disconnected for any duration before modification occurs.
The amended claim now requires not only that an expiration period be measured from the time of disconnection, but also that the device has remained disconnected for that entire period. None of the cited references teaches or suggests tracking device disconnection state over time in this manner or using such persistence as a condition for removal.
Accordingly, the cited references fail to teach or suggest this limitation.”
In response to argument [a], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
At page.11, the applicant says Gottumukkula doesn’t teach the expiration period, Gottumukkula (paras 25,55, 70) talks about using timestamp to record management information. Therefore, timestamp is inherent including in management information and can be used for record period of time. Then, (paras 53, 54 and 55) talks about ignoring temporary changes that are less than a day. The day is the expiration period after which it commits to the detected change. Applicant doesn’t discuss the citation or mention the time limit or disclosures like “When a particular networked device is removed from the network for a short time, no changes to the associated fabric subsets may be needed or desired…On the other hand, when a particular networked device is removed from the network for a longer period of time, the associated fabric subsets may be changed to reduce security gaps.”
Applicant's argument(s) b filed on 4/6/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
b. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 11-12)
“Claim 1 recites in part: "determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event." The art of record does not teach or suggest at least this limitation.
The Office Action relies on Chen and asserts that an "abnormal disconnection"
corresponds to a disconnection that is not the result of a scheduled event. Respectfully, this interpretation is not supported by Chen.
Chen describes a master-slave network in which a device may become "abnormally disconnected" due to fault conditions, such as failure to receive a beacon signal or network malfunction. In this context, "abnormal" refers to an unintended disruption or failure within the network topology. Chen does not disclose or suggest distinguishing between disconnections that are the result of scheduled operations (e.g., maintenance or administrative actions) and those that are not.
The claimed limitation requires determining whether a disconnection is not the result of a scheduled event, which implies that the system is aware of and distinguishes between intentional and unintentional disconnections. This requires a different type of classification than merely detecting that a disconnection has occurred or that it is abnormal in the sense of a failure.
Chen provides no teaching of identifying scheduled events, no mechanism for distinguishing such events from other types of disconnections, and no suggestion of using such a distinction as part of a cleanup decision process. The Examiner's mapping of "abnormal disconnection" to "not the result of a scheduled event" is therefore unsupported.
Accordingly, Chen fails to teach or suggest this limitation.”
In response to argument [b], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
At page.12, Applicant also argues Chen doesn’t teach detecting the disconnection is not the result of a scheduled event, but detecting the disconnection is abnormal (Chen, para 07, 27) is one species of detecting an unscheduled event, and Claim 1 does not limit the determination to some particular standard.
Applicant's argument(s) c filed on 4/6/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
c. Regarding claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 13)
“Becker operates on generic data entries within a database and does not involve host-target communication relationships.”
In response to argument [c], Examiners respectfully disagrees
Kaneriya teach the limitation at (para 83), when the end node stops sending KeepAlive messages for more than a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 30 missed cycles, 60 missed cycles, 90 missed cycles, 120 missed cycles, etc., which may equate to 75 seconds, 150 seconds, 225 seconds, 300 seconds, or more, the FCF 404 is configured to send a CVL to clear the FCoE session. Meantime, the SDN controller 402 is configured to inform a SDN-capable switch 418 to remove the flow corresponding to both the VN-port on the FCF 404, and the FCF 404 on the SDN-capable switch 418 connected to the end node in the flow path. [examiner notes: the flow entry (the flow corresponding to both the VN-port on the FCF 404, and the FCF 404 on the SDN-capable switch 418 connected to the end node in the flow path) interprets to be the host-target pair.])
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.
1. Claim(s) 1,3- 8, 10-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula (US 20100040053 A1) in view of Becker (US 11941004 B1) in view of Chen (US 20130170336 A1) in view of Kaneriya (US 20160087845 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a computer-implemented method comprising:
Gottumukkula teaches detecting disconnection of a device from a Fibre Channel (FC) fabric, wherein the FC fabric is associated with a zoning configuration, and wherein the zoning configuration includes indications of devices configured to communicate within a zone; (Gottumukkula, [0049]- [0050, Figs. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a Fibre Channel network, generally designated as 200. The network 200 includes a networking device, referred to hereinafter as a switch 210, with six ports 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, and 216, and a management module 218. The network 200 also includes six networked devices, referred to hereinafter as devices 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, and 226. Each device 221 through 226 is coupled to one of the six ports 211 through 216. As such, device 221 is coupled to port 211, device 222 is coupled to port 212, device 223 is coupled to port 213, device 224 is coupled to port 214, device 225 is coupled to port 215, and device 226 is coupled to port 216. Fig.3 shows the management information includes a device table 302, a defined zone table 304, and a zone configuration table 306. The device table 302 includes information regarding the network topography. [examiner notes: a Fibre Channel (FC) zone is a logical grouping of ports that are allowed to communicate with each other. Zoning is a connection isolation technique that's used when connecting hosts to a storage system over Fibre Channel SAN.)
generating an update to the zoning configuration, (Gottumukkula, [0067], automatically updating and changing management information to reflect changes in network topography when devices are removed from the network. In this way, a network operator can spend less time maintaining accurate management information in the network.) wherein the update includes a timestamp corresponding to a time at which the disconnection of the device was detected; (Gottumukkula, [0007], FIG. 3 illustrates management information stored on a management module, including a device table, a zone table, and a configuration table; [0025], a non-limiting example of management information includes a router set-up command, data packet header information (e.g., addresses), an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) message (e.g., echo request, router discovery, timestamp, etc.), other suitable management information, or any combination thereof. [0055], the management module 218 automatically detects the uncoupling and removal of the device 222 from the port 212 and modifies the management information 300 to reflect the change to the network 200, as described below. [0070], detecting that the first networked device has become uncoupled from the network includes detecting that the first networked device has not been logged onto the network for a particular amount of time. [examiner notes: timestamp is inherent including in management information.])
determining, based on the timestamp, (Gottumukkula, [0025], a non-limiting example of management information includes a router set-up command, data packet header information (e.g., addresses), an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) message (e.g., echo request, router discovery, timestamp, etc.), other suitable management information, or any combination thereof. [0055], the management module 218 automatically detects the uncoupling and removal of the device 222 from the port 212 and modifies the management information 300 to reflect the change to the network 200, as described below. [0070], detecting that the first networked device has become uncoupled from the network includes detecting that the first networked device has not been logged onto the network for a particular amount of time. [examiner notes: timestamp is inherent including in management information.]) that an expiration period corresponding to the disconnection has elapsed, wherein the expiration period is defined according to the time at which the disconnection of the device was detected; (Gottumukkula, [0053]- [0055] Talks about ignoring temporary changes that are less than a day. The day is the expiration period after which it commits to the detected change. When a particular networked device is removed from the network for a longer period of time, the associated fabric subsets may be changed to reduce security gaps.)
in response to and without performing removal of the entry until the expiration period has elapsed (Gottumukkula, [0054], when a particular networked device is removed from the network for a longer period of time, the associated fabric subsets may be changed to reduce security gaps. [0070], detecting that the first networked device has become uncoupled from the network includes detecting that the first networked device has not been logged onto the network for a particular amount of time.)
Gottumukkula does not teach in response to determining that a periodic time interval for evaluating stale zoning entries has elapsed; determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event, automatically determining an entry corresponding to a host-target pair associated with the device from the zoning configuration is a stale entry and removing the entry.
Becker however in the same field of computer networking teaches in response to determining that a periodic time interval for evaluating stale zoning entries has elapsed: (Becker, col.7, lines 1-17; implementations of the present disclosure include maintaining records of which entries in the false positive table are not used to exclude any similar findings in tables of the data store, so that stale entries can be periodically removed.)
automatically determining an entry associated with the device from the zoning configuration is a stale entry and removing the entry. (Becker, col.7, lines 1-17; implementations of the present disclosure include maintaining records of which entries in the false positive table are not used to exclude any similar findings in tables of the data store, so that stale entries can be periodically removed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gottumukkula by incorporating the teachings of Becker. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to improve compliance with internal and external policies, and enhance computational efficiency (Becker, col.2).
Gottumukkula does not teach determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event, entry corresponding to a host-target pair associated with the device.
Chen however in the same field of computer networking teaches determining that the disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event; (Chen, [0005], the disclosure provides a master device is revealed, for use in a master-slave tree network, comprising a transceiver and a controller. The transceiver is configured to receive an identifier request message comprising a first identifier, wherein the first identifier identifies a first slave device, which is abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network. [0027], If the left node is a neighboring node to the slave device 3, the slave device 3 may update the neighboring node list 3020 by removing the left node from the neighboring node list 3020 (S4040). [examiner notes: abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network is not the result of the scheduled event. Tt would be obvious that disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event which is one of abnormal disconnections.])
and the disconnection is not the result of the scheduled event, (Chen, [0005], the disclosure provides a master device is revealed, for use in a master-slave tree network, comprising a transceiver and a controller. The transceiver is configured to receive an identifier request message comprising a first identifier, wherein the first identifier identifies a first slave device, which is abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network. [0027], If the left node is a neighboring node to the slave device 3, the slave device 3 may update the neighboring node list 3020 by removing the left node from the neighboring node list 3020 (S4040). [examiner notes: abnormally disconnected from the master-slave tree network is not the result of the scheduled event. It would be obvious that disconnection of the device is not the result of a scheduled event which is one of abnormal disconnections.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gottumukkula by incorporating the teachings of Chen. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to quickly recovers from a broken node (Chen, [0016]).
Gottumukkula does not teach entry corresponding to a host-target pair associated with the device,
Kaneriya however in the same field of computer networking teaches entry corresponding to a host-target pair associated with the device, (Kaneriya, [0083], when the end node stops sending KeepAlive messages for more than a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 30 missed cycles, 60 missed cycles, 90 missed cycles, 120 missed cycles, etc., which may equate to 75 seconds, 150 seconds, 225 seconds, 300 seconds, or more, the FCF 404 is configured to send a CVL to clear the FCoE session. Meantime, the SDN controller 402 is configured to inform a SDN-capable switch 418 to remove the flow corresponding to both the VN-port on the FCF 404, and the FCF 404 on the SDN-capable switch 418 connected to the end node in the flow path. [examiner notes: the flow entry (the flow corresponding to both the VN-port on the FCF 404, and the FCF 404 on the SDN-capable switch 418 connected to the end node in the flow path) interprets to be the host-target pair.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gottumukkula by incorporating the teachings of Kaneriya. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to ensure that the SDN operates efficiently and as desired by the administrator (Kaneriya, [0002]).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya teach wherein: the zone includes the device and a second device within the FC fabric, wherein the device and the second device form a host-target pair associated with the zone; (Gottumukkula, [0036], a Fibre Channel fabric network can include fabric subsets called zones. The networked devices in a zone are referred to as elements. The elements in a zone can be mapped to the zone by the physical port to which the element is coupled or by a unique identification number.)
and the computer-implemented method further comprises automatically removing the zone from the zoning configuration. (Gottumukkula, [0051], [0067], [0071], Figs.2-3, the defined zone table 304 illustrates the defined zones A, B, C, D, and E. Zone D includes the elements: the device coupled to Port 212 (device 222), and WWN:x0003 (device 223). Wherein the management module is operable to automatically update the plurality of zones such that the particular device deleted or not included. Figs.8-13 showing each zone associate with single device, and automatically deleted zone D and associate configuration from tables.)
Regarding claim(s) 4, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya teach wherein: the device is a target device associated with a host device from a plurality of host devices within the zone; and (Gottumukkula, [0050], Fig.3 shows a zone including multiple servers.)
the computer-implemented method further comprises automatically removing an entry corresponding to the host device from the zone. (Gottumukkula, [0056], when a networked device is removed from a network, the management module detects that the networked device has been removed, and modifies the fabric subsets to account for the fact that a networked device was removed from the network. [0067], automatically updating and changing management information to reflect changes in network topography when devices are removed from the network. In this way, a network operator can spend less time maintaining accurate management information in the network.)
Regarding claim(s) 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya teach further comprising: determining that removing the entry from the zoning configuration results in the zone having a single target device within the zone; (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], Figs. 7 through 9 illustrate embodiments where the management module 218 deletes removed devices from the zones that include the devices and further deletes zones with only one device. While a modified zone D′ would include only the element x0003, such a zone is not be permitted in this particular example, and hence, the zone D is deleted.)
and automatically removing the zone from the zoning configuration. (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], Figs. 7 through 9 illustrate embodiments where the management module 218 automatically deletes removed devices from the zones that include the devices and further deletes zones with only one device. While a modified zone D′ would include only the element x0003, such a zone is not be permitted in this particular example, and hence, the zone D is deleted.)
Regarding claim(s) 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya teach further comprising: determining that all host devices associated with the zone are removable from the zone; (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], FIG. 11 illustrates an embodiment where the management module 218 deletes the replaced zones (e.g., zones A and D) from the zone table 1104, and deletes the replaced configurations (e.g., configurations I, II, and III) from the configuration table 1106.)
and automatically removing the zone from the zoning configuration. (Gottumukkula, [0060]- [0067], FIG. 11 illustrates an embodiment where the management module 218 deletes the replaced zones (e.g., zones A and D) from the zone table 1104, and deletes the replaced configurations (e.g., configurations I, II, and III) from the configuration table 1106.)
Regarding claim(s) 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya teach wherein: the device is a host device associated with a set of target devices within the zone; and (Gottumukkula, [0050], Fig.3 shows a zone including multiple servers and devices.)
teaches the computer-implemented method further comprises removing the device from the zone as a result of a set of flows corresponding to the host device and the set of target devices being identified for removal. (Kaneriya, [0083], when the end node stops sending KeepAlive messages for more than a predetermined amount of time, e.g., 30 missed cycles, 60 missed cycles, 90 missed cycles, 120 missed cycles, etc., which may equate to 75 seconds, 150 seconds, 225 seconds, 300 seconds, or more, the FCF 404 is configured to send a CVL to clear the FCoE session. Meantime, the SDN controller 402 is configured to inform a SDN-capable switch 418 to remove the flow corresponding to both the VN-port on the FCF 404, and the FCF 404 on the SDN-capable switch 418 connected to the end node in the flow path.)
The motivation to combine is same as claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 3, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 4, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 5, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 6, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 7, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
2. Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula in view of Becker in view of Chen in view of Kaneriya further in view of Dutt (US 20090019142 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the system of claim 1, computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya teach wherein the update further indicates a fabric port corresponding to the device, (Gottumukkula, [0057], Fig. 4 illustrates the network 200 with the device 222 (the NT application server) uncoupled from the port 212 and removed from the network 200)
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen-Kaneriya do not teach and wherein the update is used to remove an FC identifier (FCID) entry corresponding to the device from the FC fabric.
Dutt however in the same field of computer networking teaches and wherein the update is used to remove an FC identifier (FCID) entry corresponding to the device from the FC fabric. (Dutt, [0030], the login state associated with the target may be updated to indicate that Host 2 304 is no longer logged in to the target at 342 (e.g., by removing the FCID associated with Host 2 304 from the login state or associated data structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify wherein the update is used to remove an FC identifier (FCID) entry corresponding to the device from the FC fabric as taught by Subramani. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to increasing the number of initiators that can login to a target (Dutt, [0002]).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially
the same rationale.
3. Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottumukkula in view of Becker in view of Chen further in view of Sandler (US 20210336960 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 21, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Gottumukkula-Becker-Chen teach further comprising: monitoring flow statistics associated with host-target pair flows within the zoning configuration to identify one or more inactive flows between devices that remain connected to the FC fabric; and automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is associated with an inactive flow and removing the entry.
Sandler however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising: monitoring flow statistics associated with host-target pair flows within the zoning configuration to identify one or more inactive flows between devices that remain connected to the FC fabric; and automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is associated with an inactive flow and removing the entry. (Sandler, [0031] Last but not least, flow monitoring functionality further includes aging functionality, whereby traffic flows are removed from the flow cache table upon becoming inactive flows. Usually the criterion for a flow to become an inactive flow, can be a predefined period of time that has lapsed since time at which the last packet associated with that flow was received, or when a packet associated with a certain flow was received with an “end-of-flow” indicator (e.g. TCP FIN flag).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method/system of Gottumukkula to specify monitoring flow statistics associated with host-target pair flows within the zoning configuration to identify one or more inactive flows between devices that remain connected to the FC fabric; and automatically determining an entry corresponding to the device from the zoning configuration is associated with an inactive flow and removing the entry as taught by Sandler. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide a solution to monitoring all traffic flows (Sandler, [0032]- [0032]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights