DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 11/24/2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
3. Claims 1, 8, 15, have been amended.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2025, 11/05/2025, 01/05/2026, have been acknowledged and are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued that:
a. However, claim 1, as amended, recites that activation of the congestion control mechanism is allowed only when the accumulated connection-level measure reaches a threshold that is based on topology of the computing network and that over-attenuation of the overall sending rate or window is prevented and the load balancing mechanism is allowed to continue attempts to improve current sub-optimal or imbalanced traffic-to-paths distribution. None of Baniamerian nor Kapadia nor Debbage teach such features (Applicant’s remarks, pages 7-8).
In response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the Interview held on 10/06/2025, the examiner stated that the proposed amendment amounted to intended use. In the ensuing claim filing, the attorney has amended the same proposed amendment but has removed the term ‘thereby’ and added ‘by’ at the end of the proposed amendment. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, if the references disclose the ‘allowing’ portion of the claim, the ‘preventing’ portion is also taught.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 8, 15, recite “preventing over-attenuation of an overall sending rate or window and allowing the load balancing mechanism to continue attempts to improve current sub-optimal or imbalanced traffic- to-paths distribution by allowing activation of the congestion control mechanism only when the accumulated connection-level measure reaches a threshold that is based on topology of the computing network.” The examiner is equating the “preventing” portion of the claim as intended use and as long as the “allowing” portion of the claim is taught, the “preventing” portion is also taught.
Claim 8 recites a “system” comprising a “network device and computing node” that performs operations. The examiner is equating the network device to be a NIC for 101 purposes (see applicant’s specification, paragraph 27, equating a network device to a NIC).
Claim 15 recites a “computer readable storage medium”. However, applicant’s specification states that “computer readable storage” media include tangible and/or physical forms of media and is not considered “communication media” which can embody signals (see applicant’s specification, paragraphs 146-147).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 1, 8, 15, include the phrase (quoted below) is indefinite for lack of objective boundaries and for reciting results/intent rather than a definable structure or algorithm:
“preventing over‑attenuation of an overall sending rate or window and allowing the load balancing mechanism to continue attempts to improve current sub‑optimal or imbalanced traffic‑to‑paths distribution by allowing activation of the congestion control mechanism only when the accumulated connection‑level measure reaches a threshold that is based on topology of the computing network”
The claim language is indefinite because it (a) uses evaluative terms (“over‑attenuation,” “sub‑optimal,” “imbalanced”) without specifying measurable criteria; (b) recites an undefined metric (“accumulated connection‑level measure”) without describing how that metric is computed (e.g., formula, aggregation method, time window, weighting); and (c) requires a “threshold that is based on topology” without specifying how topology is represented or how a topology→threshold mapping is computed (e.g., a function, algorithm, or data structure). As written, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baniamerian et al. (US 2023/0198895) in view of Kapadia et al. (US 2013/0308455) and Debbage at al. (US 2021/0119930).
Regarding claim 1, Baniamerian disclosed:
A method for managing a computing network (Figure 1, network 100) implementing a congestion control mechanism (Paragraph 61, computing a congestion metric) and a load balancing mechanism (Figure 2, congestion reflection module 216), wherein the load balancing mechanism is run at a packet level (Paragraph 50, packet based load balancing) (Paragraphs 49-50, load balancing to manage traffic distribution over communication links so as to avoid or reduce congestion. Traffic distribution is managed at the packet level, which is referred to as packet based load balancing. Paragraph 51, Figure 2, the congestion reflection module 216 performs load balancing of the traffic based on a computed traffic distribution), the method comprising:
generating a connection-level measure (Paragraph 48, metric to indicate congestion) for congestion in the computing network, wherein the connection-level measure is updated at a packet level for an end-to-end path (Paragraph 48, length of queue and utilization rate are metrics used to indicate congestion in the network. Paragraphs 49-50, load balancing to manage traffic distribution over communication links so as to avoid or reduce congestion. The communications links traversed by the traffic from the source switch to the destination switch is referred to as a path (i.e., end to end). Traffic distribution is managed at the packet level, which is referred to as packet based load balancing. Paragraph 59, the congestion information is collected as a packet traverses a path from a given switch to a destination switch, with the packets header being used to store congestion information (i.e., updated at a packet level));
accumulating (Paragraph 59, collecting) the connection-level measure (Paragraph 59, after sending a plurality of packets over a plurality of paths to one or more destinations, collecting congestion information about the plurality of paths); and
preventing over-attenuation of an overall sending rate or window and allowing the load balancing mechanism to continue attempts to improve current sub-optimal or imbalanced traffic- to-paths distribution by (i.e., this is expressed largely as an intended effect or purpose (“preventing…”, “allowing…”), rather than concrete, structural or algorithmic steps so a teaching is not required for intended use statements) allowing activation of the congestion control mechanism only when the accumulated connection-level measure reaches a threshold (Paragraph 60, first/second thresholds) (Paragraph 60, the congestion metric, which represents the actual congestion level, is determined for each link along a path, only if the link utilization (or queue length) falls between the first and second thresholds (i.e., threshold). Paragraphs 61-62, any link utilization that falls below the first threshold is ignored or considered equivalent to zero congestion. Using the first threshold, the congestion metric is only computed when link utilization rises to a level that could affect the traffic (i.e., above a first threshold), thus reducing the need to perform computations).
While Baniamerian disclosed accumulating the collection level measure (see above), Baniamerian did not explicitly disclose accumulating the collection level measure using a moving average with decreasing weights assigned to older connection-level measures.
However, in an analogous art, Kapadia disclosed accumulating the collection level measure using a moving average with decreasing weights assigned to older connection-level measures (Paragraph 19, maintaining (i.e., accumulating) input and output byte statistics where the input and output byte statistics are representative of a load on each of the network ports (i.e., connection level measure). Paragraph 20, providing a metric of current load by determining the exponential weighted average of the number of bytes egressing from each of the network ports. The weighting factors can decrease exponentially over time, in order to reduce the influence of progressively older data on the weighted average).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Baniamerian with Kapadia because the references involve congestion control techniques, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the exponentially weighted averaging of Kapadia with the teachings of Baniamerian in order to reduce the influence of relatively older data on the average (Kapadia, Paragraph 20).
While Baniamerian and Kapadia disclosed traversing multiple paths (Baniamerian, Paragraph 2, network having multiple paths each path being one or more links between nodes), Baniamerian and Kapadia did not explicitly disclose wherein connections in the end to end path traverse multiple paths, the multiple paths with different load and congestion extents; and allowing activation of the congestion control mechanism only when the accumulated connection level measure reaches a threshold that is based on topology of the computing network.
However, in an analogous art, Debbage disclosed wherein connections in the end to end path traverse multiple paths, the multiple paths with different load and congestion extents (Paragraph 52, multipathing allows for multiple paths to be used between a sending node and a receiving node to allow spreading of traffic across multiple switch fabric paths. Paragraph 143, the congestion and control sublayer adjusts a maximum transmission rate and a transmission window per path (i.e., different load and congestion extents)); and
preventing over-attenuation of an overall sending rate or window and allowing the load balancing mechanism to continue attempts to improve current sub-optimal or imbalanced traffic- to-paths distribution by (i.e., this is expressed largely as an intended effect or purpose (“preventing…”, “allowing…”), rather than concrete, structural or algorithmic steps so a teaching is not required for intended use statements) allowing activation of the congestion control mechanism only when the connection level measure reaches a threshold that is based on topology of the computing network (Paragraph 143, the congestion and control sublayer adjusts a maximum transmission rate and a transmission window per path. The CCS is notified of Backward Explicit Congestion Notification (BECN), packet drops and retransmission, and packet acknowledgement. The CCS also receives topology or knowledge of the overall network topology or of the network paths produced by particular path steering bits. Paragraph 144, CCS uses switch based hints and topology information to have explicit notifications of congestion on a link that can be applied to all paths traversing that link. Paragraph 145, the CCS controls maximum number of bytes per second or the number of bytes in flight on a given path. Paragraph 180, fast path congestion hints trigger based on specific congestion thresholds being met).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Baniamerian and Kapadia with Debbage because the references involve congestion control techniques, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the topology of Debbage with the teachings of Baniamerian and Kapadia in order to reduce loads on networks and reduce latency associated with retransmission of lost packets (Debbage, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 8, 15, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1. Claim 8 recites a network device (Baniamerian, Figure 2, switch 200) and a network node (Baniamerian, Figure 1, controller 112). Claim 15 recites a computer readable storage medium (Baniamerian, Paragraph 109, computer readable medium) and a computing node (Baniamerian, Figure 2, switch 200). Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, have been addressed. Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage disclosed:
wherein the connection-level measure is accumulated using exponentially weighted averaging (Kapadia, Paragraph 20, providing a metric of current load by determining the exponential weighted average of the number of bytes egressing from each of the network ports).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, have been addressed. Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage disclosed:
wherein the threshold is determined for the computing network based on analysis (Baniamerian, Paragraph 60, utilizing a congestion metric formula (i.e., analyzing) to determine the congestion metric if the link utilization exceeds a first threshold).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, have been addressed. Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage disclosed:
wherein the threshold is determined for the computing network based on experimentation (Baniamerian, Paragraph 61, the first threshold may be a variable threshold, for example, a function that decreases with increasing number of flows in the link (i.e., experimentation)).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, have been addressed. Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage disclosed:
wherein the threshold is determined for the computing network based on topology (Debbage, Paragraph 144, utilizing topology information, explicit notifications of congestion on a link can be applied to all paths traversing that link).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, have been addressed. Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage disclosed:
wherein connections in the computing network are allowed to traverse multiple paths simultaneously (Debbage, Paragraphs 52-53, multipathing allows multiple paths to be exploited between a sending node and a receiving node to allow spreading of traffic across multiple switch fabric paths to give better load balancing and better avoidance of congestion hot spots. Utilizing NBMP where packets from a single node uses multiple paths through the network).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Claims 7, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baniamerian et al. (US 2023/0198895) in view of Kapadia et al. (US 2013/0308455), Debbage at al. (US 2021/0119930), and Yang (US 2022/0210097).
Regarding claims 7, 14, the limitations of claims 6, 13, have been addressed. Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage did not explicitly disclose wherein the connections in the computing network are qpairs.
However, in an analogous art, Yang disclosed wherein the connections in the computing network are qpairs (Paragraph 21, packets belonging to a new qpair connection).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage with Yang because the references involve load balancing techniques, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the qpairs of Yang with the teachings of Baniamerian, Kapadia, and Debbage in order to allow for increasing of memory used for a qpair connection, thereby allowing increased connections (Yang, Paragraph 42).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451