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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (Summary of pages 2-6, Examiner emphasis – Bold)
…Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific routing behavior at ingress, namely routing a packet received on a terminal link on the next hop to a switch in another VRG. Froese does not disclose this behavior. Froese is directed to routing traffic to avoid faulty global links. Froese at [0028-29] describes using a global fault table, global fault list, and a global non-minimal fault list to avoid faulty global links.
…None of these paragraphs, nor does anywhere else in Froese, describe routing a packet received on a terminal link off the source VRG on the next hop. Importantly, Froese explicitly contemplates routing packets through local links within a VRG prior to global routing, including routing packets to switches possessing eligible global ports.
Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
See updated rejection on claim 1.
In particular, Froese in [0026] discloses that 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. With global non-minimal routing, some packets leaving the source group (local group) are routed to a group (an intermediate group) other than the destination group. This other group is chosen at random and is termed the intermediate group (next-hop). On reaching an intermediate group, the packet is then routed directly to the destination group using a global link that directly connects the intermediate group to the destination group. That is, the packet is received first in a source group (a switch in a local group) and transmitted via a local link out to a switch in an intermediate group serving as a next-hop towards a switch in a destination group. Thus, Froese discloses the “specific routing behavior at ingress, namely routing a packet received on a terminal link on the next hop to a switch in another VRG”, as required by the independent claim. Furthermore, [0173] discloses a frame received at local group that is transmitted to a global group using local non-minimal paths by taking two switch-to-switch hops, from the source switch to an intermediate switch, known as the Root switch, and from there to the destination switch. That is, the frame/packet was first received at a switch in a local group, using a local link, the frame was transmitted to a next-hop/switch in an intermediary group, and from there to a switch in a destination group. Therefore, Froese discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8,10-14, and 16 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Froese (US 2022/0166705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Froese discloses a method of global first, non-minimal routing in a Dragonfly topology (Froese, fig. 9, [0022; 0025-0026] discloses Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. In a 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. 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 Dragonfly topology comprising a plurality of interconnected virtual routing groups (VRGs) (Froese, fig. 9, [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. Each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports. The ports connected to processing nodes are edge ports. Local ports connect to other switches within the same group. Global ports connect to other switches that are in a different group. 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. [0064] each link in this network may be virtual channels(VC)),
wherein each VRG includes a plurality of interconnected switches (switches within the same group) (Froese, figs. 1&9, [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. Each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports. The ports connected to processing nodes are edge ports. Local ports connect to other switches within the same group. Global ports connect to other switches that are in a different group. 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),
wherein the switches include terminal links to compute nodes (endpoints), local links to other switches in the same VRG (Froese, figs. 2&9, [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. Each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports. The ports connected to processing nodes are edge ports. Local ports connect to other switches within the same group. Global ports connect to other switches that are in a different group. 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, fig. 9, [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. Each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports. The ports connected to processing nodes are edge ports. Local ports connect to other switches within the same group. Global 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
the method comprises:
receiving, on a terminal link (local link) of a switch,(switch in a local group) a packet (a frame) whose destination is in another VRG (global group), routing, by the switch, the packet on the next hop (intermediary/intermediate group) to a switch in another VRG (global group) on a global link (Global link) (Froese [0026; 0173] 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. With global non-minimal routing, some packets leaving the source group are routed to a group other than the destination group. This other group is chosen at random and is termed the intermediate group (next-hop). On reaching an intermediate group, the packet is then routed directly to the destination group using a global link that directly connects the intermediate group to the destination group. [0173] further discloses a frame received at local group that is transmitted to a global group using local non-minimal paths by taking two switch-to-switch hops, from the source switch to an intermediate switch, known as the Root switch, and from there to the destination switch. That is, the frame/packet is received at a switch in a local group, using a local link, the frame is transmitted to a next-hop/switch in an intermediary group, and from there to a switch in a destination group).
Regarding claim 2, Froese discloses the method of claim 1 wherein routing, by the switch, the packet to a switch in another VRG on a global link further comprises transmitting the packet on a port on the switch connected to a global link based on local routing decisions that include use of the global link on the next hop (Froese [0026;0028;0033] 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. 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 (next hop), directly connecting the source group to the destination group).
Regarding claim 4, Froese discloses the method of claim 1 wherein routing, by the switch, the packet to a switch in another VRG on a global link further comprises transmitting the packet on a port on the switch connected to a global link (Froese [0026;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. The packet takes a global minimal path if it traverses one global link, directly connecting the source group to the destination group. With global non-minimal routing, some packets leaving the source group are routed to a group other than the destination group. This other group is chosen at random and is termed the intermediate group).
Regarding claim 5, Froese discloses the method of claim | wherein routing, by the switch, the packet to a switch in another VRG on a global link further comprises routing the packet to the destination VRG (Froese [0026;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. The packet takes a global minimal path if it traverses one global link, directly connecting the source group to the destination group. With global non-minimal routing, some packets leaving the source group are routed to a group other than the destination group. This other group is chosen at random and is termed the intermediate group).
Regarding claim 6, Froese discloses the method of claim | wherein routing, by the switch, the packet to a switch in another VRG on a global link further comprises routing the packet to a pass-through VRG (intermediate group) (Froese [0026;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. With global non-minimal routing, some packets leaving the source group are routed to a group other than the destination group. This other group is chosen at random and is termed the intermediate group).
Regarding claim(s) 7-8 and 10 – 12, the claim(s) are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 13-14 and 16-18, the claim(s) are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Froese discloses a routing algorithm for non-minimal routing in a Dragonfly topology (Froese [0184] discloses Dragonfly routing algorithms allow a non-minimal path in both the intermediate and destination groups),
the Dragonfly topology comprising a plurality of interconnected virtual routing groups (VRGs) (i.e., the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints [0025]),
wherein each VRG includes a plurality of interconnected switches (fig. 1),
wherein the switches include terminal links to compute nodes (fig. 2), local links to other switches in the same VRG, and global links to switches in other VRGs (Froese, fig. 9, [0025-0026] With the Dragonfly network topology, the network is subdivided into groups, with each group containing some number of switches and some number of endpoints. Each switch is an ASIC with many interconnected ports. The ports of each switch are divided between edge ports, local ports, and global ports. The ports connected to processing nodes are edge ports. Local ports connect to other switches within the same group. Global ports connect to other switches that are in a different group. 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. [0064] each link in this network may be virtual channels(VC)),
the routing algorithm comprising routing, by a source switch on the first hop, a packet to a switch in another VRG on a global link if the packet is received on the terminal link of the source switch (Froese [0026-0028] 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 (global next hop), directly connecting the source group to the destination group).
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 non-minimal routing in dragonfly topologies.
Parker et al. (US 2012/0144065 A1)
Chen et al. (US 2017/0187616 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 to 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