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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Zuber disables failing ports due to malfunction and does not disclose receiving reconfiguration parameters indicating that a set of new ports replace a target port. (Rem. 9) This argument is not persuasive.
While Zuber discloses disabling failing ports, Southworth discloses mapping information in which a port associated with a failed path is replaced with another port (¶[0046], a mapping to a failed physical port is removed and replaced with another physical port), and that such mapping information is maintained in tables representing configuration data (¶[0048]). Thus, Southworth teaches explicitly defining which ports replace a target port.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Southworth’s mapping-based replacement into the reconfiguration parameters of Zuber, as modified by Toman, to specify that a set of new ports replace a target port during reconfiguration. Accordingly, the combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitation of receiving reconfiguration parameters indicating that a set of new ports are to replace a target port.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 16 December 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11,909,671 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al (US Pat. 10,999,127) in view of Toman et al (US Pat. 7,492,705), and further in view of Southworth (US Pub. 2010/0054117).
Regarding claim 21, Zuber discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a network device, one or more reconfiguration parameters … (col. 2, ll. 59+, the SFD database 140 includes an object per device in the network, and each device port can have its own entry with devices related to that port should it fail);
identifying the target port of a first line card of a network device for reconfiguration based on one or more reconfiguration parameters (col. 2, ll. 59+, the SFD database identifies a failing port and associated related ports);
disabling, at a control plane of the network device, a respective feature provided to the target port, wherein the control plane provides network features at a port-level granularity (col. 3, ll. 30+, the controller can shut down ports; col. 6, ll. 43+, the controller communicates with the switch’s control plane to disable ports);
disabling the target port of the first line card (col. 6, ll. 43+, a controller detects the failing port and can disable ports);
configuring the set of new ports based on the one or more reconfiguration parameters (col. 5, ll. 49+, other ports continue to operate and pass packets through a data plane of the switches); and
in response to successful configuration of the set of new ports, enabling, at the control plane, a respective new port and one or more features associated with the new port …(col. 5, ll. 49+, continued operation of ports via forwarding tables).
Zuber does not specifically disclose that the target port is on a first line card and that new ports of a second line card replace the target port. Toman discloses this feature by teaching removal of connectors from old cards 162 and coupling them to temporary line cards 174, including by using jumper cables 180/181 (col. 6, ll. 24+, the connectors that were connected to old cards 162 are removed and coupled to temporary cards 174 … in an alternative embodiment, a jumper cable 180 is employed to couple connector 168 to a port on a line card in set 174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Zuber’s reconfiguration process in the context of Toman’s line card replacement, thereby enabling continuity of port functionality across line cards.
However, Zuber in view of Toman does not disclose that the one or more reconfiguration parameters indicate that a set of new ports of a second line card are to replace the target port of a first line card of the network device.
Southworth, from analogous art, discloses mapping information in which a port associated with a failed path is replaced with another port (¶[0046], a mapping to a failed physical port is removed and replaced with another physical port), and that such mapping information is maintained in tables representing configuration data (¶[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Southworth’s mapping-based replacement into the reconfiguration parameters of Zuber in order to specify that a set of new ports replace a target port during reconfiguration, since mapping tables provide a known mechanism for defining port relationships and enabling dynamic reassignment.
Regarding claim 22, Zuber discloses wherein configuring the set of new ports comprises initiating the set of new ports based on a set of default parameters (6:43+, Other ports … can continue to be operational by forwarding packets to neighboring devices in accordance with a forwarding table within the device 160.).
Regarding claim 23, Zuber discloses wherein the one or more features associated with the new port include services provided by a set of daemons running on the network device; and wherein the method further comprises: terminating the services provided to the target port; and initiating the services to the set of new ports based on the set of default parameters (3, 30+, The controller 130 can shut down (i.e., disable) all of the related ports listed within the SFD database 140. Alternatively, the controller 130 can disable the entire device or shift away the device.).
Regarding claim 24, Toman discloses wherein the first line card comprises a first port distinct from the target port, and wherein the second line card comprises a second port that corresponds to the first port (6:24+, the connectors that were connected to old cards 162 are removed and coupled to temporary cards 174. … In an alternative embodiment, a jumper cable 180 is employed to couple connector 168 to a corresponding port on a line card in set 174.).
Regarding claim 25, Zuber discloses further comprising operating the second port based on a data plane instance of the first port (5:53+, Other ports on the switches can continue to operate and pass packets through a data plane of the switches.).
Regarding claim 26, Zuber in view of Toman and Southworth further discloses wherein receiving the one or more reconfiguration parameters comprises receiving a command comprising an identifier of the target port and the one or more reconfiguration parameters (col. 6, ll. 43+, a controller detects a failing port and checks the SFD table to determine related ports, thereby using the identifier of the target port in conjunction with associated information for reconfiguration; see also col. 2, ll. 59+, the SFD database includes entries per device port with associated related ports for failure handling).
Regarding claim 27, Toman in view of Zuber and Southworth further discloses wherein the network device comprises a plurality of line cards, and wherein the control plane individually facilitates one or more features to a respective line card (6:24+, primary processors and standby processors swap state … connectors that were connected to old cards 162 are removed and coupled to temporary cards 174 … temporary line cards 174 will begin servicing customers 112.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Zuber’s reconfiguration process in the context of Toman’s line card replacement, thereby enabling continuity of port functionality across line cards.
Regarding claim 28, Zuber in view of Toman and Southworth further discloses wherein a respective feature for a line card other than the first line card remains enabled during configuration of the set of new ports to provide uninterrupted operation (col. 6, ll. 37+, other ports that are unrelated can continue to be operational by forwarding packets to neighboring devices in accordance with a forwarding table within the device 160, thereby maintaining operation of ports other than the target port during reconfiguration).
Claim 29 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to perform substantially the same method as recited in claim 21. As such, claim 29 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber in view of Toman, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 21.
Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 22. Claim 30 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 22.
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 23. Claim 31 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 23.
Claim 32 depends from claim 29 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 24. Claim 32 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber in view of Toman, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 24, including the motivation to combine.
Claim 33 depends from claim 32 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 25. Claim 33 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 25.
Claim 34 depends from claim 29 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 26. Claim 34 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 26.
Claim 35 depends from claim 29 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 27. Claim 35 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber in view of Toman, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 27, including the motivation to combine.
Claim 36 depends from claim 35 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 28. Claim 36 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 28.
Claim 37 recites a computer system executing instructions to perform substantially the same method as recited in claim 21. Claim 37 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber in view of Toman, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 21.
Claim 38 depends from claim 37 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 22. Claim 38 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 22.
Claim 39 depends from claim 38 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 23. Claim 39 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 23.
Claim 40 depends from claim 37 and recites subject matter corresponding to claim 25. Claim 40 is similarly rejected under § 103 over Zuber, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468