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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that the amended feature recited in claim 1, “and each switch is assigned to only one set within its VRG” is not similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 13 and the rejection for those claims have been maintained.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froese et al. (US 2022/0166705 A1), in view of Maier et al. (US 2016/0021032 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Froese discloses a topology (dragonfly network topology) for high performance (fig. 1 - HPC network 114)) computing, the topology comprising (Froese, fig. 9, [0025] discloses a dragonfly network topology for high performance computing network - 114, the topology comprising):
a plurality of interconnected virtual routing groups (VRGs) (Froese, fig. 9, [0025 -0026; 0084] in a dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group (interconnected routing groups) in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. [0084] each Shaping Queue (SQ) in each of the groups consist of a sets/groups of virtual channels (VCs). That is, the dragonfly network topology consists of interconnected of virtual routing groups (group of switches or routers) with Shaping Queues, where each Shaping Queue consist of a set/group of virtual channels);
wherein each VRG has at least one link to every other VRG (Froese [0025] in a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. That is, global links are used to interconnect each virtual routing group to other virtual routing groups);
wherein each VRG includes a plurality of interconnected switches (Froese [0025] in a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. That is, local links interconnect switches within a group);
wherein the switches include terminal links (local links) to compute nodes (endpoints), local links to other switches in the same VRG (Froese [0025, With the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. [0181] in the situation of three switches, A, B, and C within a group, where each switch is connected to each other switch by four local links) and
global links to switches in other VRGs (Froese [0025] In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links); and
wherein each switch in each VRG is assigned to a particular set within its VRG (Froese [0025-0026] discloses switches that are grouped where every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. The groups may assign or identify as a source or intermediate or destination group of switches. [0162] a Dragonfly routing is hierarchical, distinguishing between local destinations (those in same group as source) and global destinations. Thus, in a dragonfly network, a switch routes to a destination group and then to a switch within that group using two tables rather than to individual destinations using one large table).
Froese did not explicitly disclose each switch is assigned to only one set within its VRG; and wherein each of its local links is assigned to either ingress traffic from terminal links or ingress traffic from global links.
Maier discloses each switch (VSW1, VSW2 and VSW3) is assigned to only one set (VR1 or VR2) within its VRG (Virtual system router, SR1) (Maier, fig. 8, [0069-0070; 0075] discloses a virtual network topology 120 comprising a virtual system router SR1 which represents a first virtual routing group. Using the controller 18, the virtual switches (VSW1, VSW2 and VSW3) in the virtual routing group SR1 may be grouped into to two different sets. As illustrated in FIG. 8, virtual switches VSW1, and VSW2 are grouped to form virtual router VR1, whereas virtual switch VSW3 is assigned to virtual router VR2),
wherein each of its local links (link between EH3 and VSW1; link between EH6,EH1 and VSW2) is assigned to either ingress traffic from terminal (End host EH1 – EH6) links or ingress traffic from global links (Maier, [0070] as illustrated in fig. 8, after grouping the switches in the Virtual Routing group (VR1) into two smaller sets (VSW1 and VSW2), virtual switch VSW1 may be assigned end host EH3, which establishes a local ingress link between VSW1 and a terminal/ end host EH3. Virtual switch VSW2 may be assigned end hosts EH1 and EH6, and similarly establish local ingress links between VSW2 and the respective end hosts (EH1 and EH6). Furthermore, virtual switch VSW3 may be assigned end hosts EH2, EH4, and EH5. Similarly local ingress links between VSW3 are established to the respective end hosts (EH2, EH4 and EH5).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Froese, and Maier because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to controlling virtual system routers to route packets between the virtual routers.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Maier into the method by Froese, thereby using a controller to control a virtual network topology by generating respective flow table entries based on identified network policies for each of the virtual routers, virtual system routers, and virtual switches, Maier, [Abstract].
Regarding claim 2, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 wherein each switch in each VRG may be an egress switch to a pass-through VRG (Froese [0162] a Dragonfly routing is hierarchical, distinguishing between local destinations (local egress switch) and global destinations (global egress switch). Thus, in a dragonfly network, a switch routes (packets pass through egress/destination group) to a destination group (egress switch group) and then to a switch within that group using two tables rather than to individual destinations using one large table. [0177] during the transmission of network traffic/packet, a hop across a local link is required in both the source/ingress and destination/egress groups. The local link hop in the destination/egress group takes the frame from the destination/egress group switch that is connected to the global link to the egress switch).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 wherein every VRG in the topology has available for routing the same number of pass-through VRGs (Froese [0025-0026] In a fault-free Dragonfly network topology, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. When a packet enters the network at one group (the source group) and leaves the network at a different group the destination group), the packet may be globally routed (routed between its source and destination group) either minimally or non-minimally. The packet takes a global minimal path if it traverses one global link, directly connecting the source group to the destination group. That is, because every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links ,the Dragonfly topology provides every routing group, access to the same number of pass-through routing groups).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 wherein the VRGs are interconnected as dragonfly (Froese, fig. 9, [0207] in a Dragonfly network topology, the network is divided into groups, with the nodes distributed among the groups).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 wherein each switch includes a switch core configured for intra packet traffic and packets received on terminal links are routed to a switch in the VRG assigned to the same set (Froese [0025-0026] discloses a Dragonfly network topology where switches are grouped. Switches that are grouped where every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. The switch is configured to transmit packet within and outside a group by transmitting packet between switches in the group using local links and outside to another group using a combination of local and global links).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 wherein each switch includes a switch core configured for intra packet traffic and packets received on global links are routed to a switch in the VRG assigned to a different set (Froese [0025-0026] discloses a Dragonfly network topology where switches are grouped. Switches that are grouped where every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. The switch is configured to transmit packet within and outside a group by transmitting packet between switches in the group using local links and outside to another group using a combination of local and global links).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology (Dragonfly network topology) of claim 7 wherein each switch is assigned to one of two sets (local source or destination groups within a group of switches) and packets received on terminal links (local links within a group) are routed to a switch assigned to the same set in the VRG (Froese [0025-0026] discloses switches that are grouped where every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. The switches are assigned or identified as a source or intermediate or destination group of switches. [0162] a Dragonfly routing is hierarchical, distinguishing between local destinations (those in same group as source) and global destinations. Thus, in a dragonfly network, a switch routes to a destination group and then to a switch within that group using two tables rather than to individual destinations using one large table).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 7 wherein each switch is assigned to one of two sets and packets received on global links are routed to a switch assigned to the other set in the VRG (Froese [0025-0026] discloses switches that are grouped where every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. The groups may assign or identify as a source or intermediate or destination group of switches. [0162] a Dragonfly routing is hierarchical, distinguishing between local destinations (those in same group as source) and global destinations. Thus, in a dragonfly network, a switch routes to a destination group and then to a switch within that group using two tables rather than to individual destinations using one large table).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Froese discloses a switch with deadlock prevention in a dragonfly topology (Froese, figs. 8 & 9, [00025] discloses a Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. A computing component 800 in the network may be used to effectuate deadlock-free multicast routing);
wherein the dragonfly topology comprising a plurality of virtual routing groups (VRGs), each VRG comprising a plurality of switches (Froese [0025] in a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. That is, local links interconnect switches within a group);
each of the switches having terminal links to compute nodes, local links to other switches in the same VRG (Froese [0025], With the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links), and
global links to switches in other VRGs (Froese [0025, With the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links); and
wherein each switch in each of the VRGs is assigned to a particular set within its VRG (Froese [0025-0026] discloses switches that are grouped where every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. The groups may assign or identify as a source or intermediate or destination group of switches. [0162] a Dragonfly routing is hierarchical, distinguishing between local destinations (those in same group as source) and global destinations. Thus, in a dragonfly network, a switch routes to a destination group and then to a switch within that group using two tables rather than to individual destinations using one large table); and
the switch comprising: a plurality of ports including a transmit controller and a receive controller (Froese [0025] In the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. hi the preferred system, each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports, Edge ports are where traffic enters and leaves the network. Each switch can transmit network traffic through a controller and receives traffic through a controller);
a control port comprising a management processor and transmit controller and a receive controller (Froese, fig. 8, [0025] In the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. hi the preferred system, each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports, Edge ports are where traffic enters and leaves the network. Each switch can transmit network traffic through a controller and receives traffic through a controller. [0196] discloses a computing component 800/controller which receives traffic at an input port (step 806) and transmits traffic through an output port (step 814); and
a switch core configured to: receive a packet on a global link or a terminal link of a source VRG or a destination VRG (Froese [0026] When a packet enters the network at one group (the source group) and leaves the network at a different group the destination group), the packet may be globally routed (routed between its source and destination group) either minimally or non-minimally);
route the packet to a local switch in the same set if the packet was received on a terminal link (Froese [0028] a packet arriving at an edge port might be routed across a local link to another switch in the same group which has some global ports the packet can use); and
route the packet to a local switch in the other set if the packet was received on a global link (Froese [0025] ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports, Edge ports are where traffic enters and leaves the network. Packets can be transmitted between different groups of switches by using a combination of local and global links. The packet is transmitted to the edge of a source group using local links. Using global links, the packet is transmitted to the edge of a second group and transmitted to an internal switch within the second group using local links within the second group. Local ports connect to other switches within the same group. Global ports connect to other switches that are in a different group).
Froese did not explicitly disclose wherein each of the local links of each switch in each VRG is assigned to either ingress traffic from terminal links or ingress traffic from global links.
Maier discloses wherein each of its local links (link between EH3 and VSW1; link between EH6,EH1 and VSW2) of each switch in each VRG is assigned to either ingress traffic from terminal (End host EH1 – EH6) links or ingress traffic from global links (Maier, [0070] as illustrated in fig. 8, after grouping the switches in the Virtual Routing group (VR1) into two smaller sets (VSW1 and VSW2), virtual switch VSW1 may be assigned end host EH3, which establishes a local ingress link between VSW1 and a terminal/ end host EH3. Virtual switch VSW2 may be assigned end hosts EH1 and EH6, and similarly establish local ingress links between VSW2 and the respective end hosts (EH1 and EH6). Furthermore, virtual switch VSW3 may be assigned end hosts EH2, EH4, and EH5. Similarly local ingress links between VSW3 are established to the respective end hosts (EH2, EH4 and EH5).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Froese discloses a VRG, the VRG comprising: a plurality of switches (Froese [0025] in a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. That is, local links interconnect switches within a group);
each of the switches having terminal links to compute nodes, local links to other switches (Froese [0025, With the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links. [0181] in the situation of three switches, A, B, and C within a group, where each switch is connected to each other switch by four local links), and
global links to switches in other VRGs (Froese [0025] In a fault-free Dragonfly network, every group is connected to every other group in the network by one or more global links and every switch within a group is connected to every other switch in the same group by one or more local links).
Froese did not explicitly disclose each of the local links of each of the switches comprising a link to a switch assigned for ingress traffic from terminal links or a link to a switch assigned for ingress traffic from global links.
Maier discloses each of the local links (link between EH3 and VSW1; link between EH6,EH1 and VSW2) of each of the switches comprising a link to a switch assigned for ingress traffic from terminal (End host EH1 – EH6) links or a link to a switch assigned for ingress traffic from global links (Maier, [0070] as illustrated in fig. 8, after grouping the switches in the Virtual Routing group (VR1) into two smaller sets (VSW1 and VSW2), virtual switch VSW1 may be assigned end host EH3, which establishes a local ingress link between VSW1 and a terminal/ end host EH3. Virtual switch VSW2 may be assigned end hosts EH1 and EH6, and similarly establish local ingress links between VSW2 and the respective end hosts (EH1 and EH6). Furthermore, virtual switch VSW3 may be assigned end hosts EH2, EH4, and EH5. Similarly local ingress links between VSW3 are established to the respective end hosts (EH2, EH4 and EH5).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 15-17 the claim(s) is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 8-9 and 2 respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froese et al. (US 2022/0166705 A1), in view of Maier et al. (US 2016/0021032 A1), further in view of Marripudi et al. (US 2019/0294513 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 but did not explicitly disclose wherein the VRG contains an even number of switches and half the switches are assigned to one set and the other half of the switches are assigned to another set.
Marripudi discloses wherein the VRG contains an even number of switches and half the switches are assigned to one set and the other half of the switches are assigned to another set (Marripudi, claim 1, discloses a computing system providing high-availability access to computing resources comprising: a plurality of interfaces; a plurality of groups of switches, each group comprising at least two switches, each switch being: directly connected to a corresponding one of the interfaces via a corresponding host link, and directly connected to at least one switch of another group of switches via one of a plurality of cross-connections
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Froese, Maier, and Marripudi because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to providing high-availability access to computing resources.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Marripudi into the method by Froese and Maier, thereby enabling each of the switches in a network to be configured such that data traffic is distributed to remaining ones of the switches through a plurality of cross-connections between the switches if one of the switches fails, Marripudi, [Abstract].
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim 5.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froese et al. (US 2022/0166705 A1), in view of Maier et al. (US 2016/0021032 A1), further in view Ronen et al. (US 2022/0407796 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Froese modified by Maier disclose the topology of claim 1 but did not explicitly disclose wherein each switch supports a plurality of virtual lanes on each link.
Ronen discloses wherein each switch supports a plurality of virtual lanes on each link (Ronen [0007] discloses subnetwork each of which includes multiple switches, where the switches are configured to communicate via at least first and second virtual lanes and are arranged in a bipartite topology including an upper tier containing upper-tier switches, which are connected to one or more of the trunk links, and a lower tier containing lower-tier switches, which are connected by local links to the upper-tier switches).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Froese, Maier and Ronen because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to partitioning local links in a subnetwork of a packet data network into at least first and second groups.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Ronen into the method by Froese and Maier, thereby upon a failure of the local link connecting the first upper-tier switch to the first lower-tier switch, data packets arriving from the network at the first upper-tier switch are rerouted to pass via the corresponding detour route to the first lower-tier switch, Ronen, [Abstract].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froese et al. (US 2022/0166705 A1), in view of Maier et al. (US 2016/0021032 A1), further in view of Tucker et al. (US 2004/0001487 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Froese modified by Maier disclose the switch of claim 11 but did not explicitly disclose wherein routing the packet to a local switch in the other set and routing the packet to a local switch in the same set includes transmitting the packet on a local link on virtual lane level Vlev0.
Tucker discloses wherein routing the packet to a local switch in the other set and routing the packet to a local switch in the same set includes transmitting the packet on a local link on virtual lane level Vlev0 (Tucker [0012] discloses Data packets convey IBA operations that can include a number of different headers. For example, the Local Route Header (LRH) is always present and it identifies the local source and local destination ports where switches will route the packet and also specifies the Service Level (SL) and Virtual Lane (VL) on which the packet travels).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Froese, Maier and Tucker because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to a switch which includes a crossbar that redirects packet based data based on a forwarding table.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Tucker into the method by Froese and Maier, thereby a switch includes a crossbar that redirects packet based data based on a forwarding table. That is, at least one port that receives data from a network and selectively transfers that data to the crossbar at different times, Tucker, [Abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following publications show the state of the art related to the use of Dragonfly network topology in preventing deadlock in a computer network.
Zahavi et al. (US 2018/0026878 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXON F DABIPI whose telephone number is (571)270-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/D.F.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451