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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Magnouche et al. US 2025/0317849.
Magunouche was cited in the previous office action. As such, the relevant teaching are hereby incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 1, Magnouche teaches a device, comprising:
a processor;
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and
a dynamic sustainability logic [Fig. 2, Agent 211], configured to:
monitor a network comprising a plurality of network devices, for one or more dynamic changes in a network topology of the network comprising at least adding a new network device or removing one or more existing network devices [0110—" The one or more respective components of the neighbor node to be set in the low-power mode may be determined based on the topology of the multiple LAGs and the one or more components of the target node to be set in the low-power state. For instance, if port #11 of a target node #1 is to be switched off, according to the topology of the LAGs, port #21 of a neighbor node #2 connecting with port #11 is also to be switched off.” Monitoring the status of the ports (on/off) of the nodes is interpreted as adding or removing network devices since turning ports on/off controls communication with the network] ;
monitor a state of one or more links connected to at least one network device of the plurality of network devices [0109—" In an embodiment of the present disclosure, traffic statistics per link 209 may be provided by a LAG manager of the target node 210 to the agent 211.”], wherein the at least one network device is a redundant network device [0150—“each agent (or each node) may be adapted to off-load traffic of the corresponding links” In order to off-load traffic, redundancy must be available.];
determine a dynamic bias [0110—“”low-power state”] associated with the at least one network device based on the one or more dynamic changes and the state of the one or more links; and generate a device power control signal based on the determined dynamic bias, wherein the device power control signal is indicative of dynamically switching an operation state of the at least one network device to an off state or a low power state [0110—" As an output for optimizing the energy consumption of the target node 210, one or more of the components of the target node 210 are determined by the agent to be set to a low-power state (while the remaining components are determined to be switched on). The agent 211 may be adapted to send a request message 204A to the components. The agent 211 may be further configured to send a similar request message 204B to one or more neighbor nodes. The request message 204B sent to the neighbor node may comprise components of the target node that are to be set in a low-power state. In this way, the request message 204B may be used for requesting the one or more neighbor nodes to set one or more respective components in the low-power state. “ and 0098 In summary, traffic statistics per link and network topology are considered when optimizing energy consumption of network nodes.].
Regarding independent claims 14 and 16, Magnouche teaches these claims according to the reasoning set forth in claim 1 supra.
Regarding claims 2-7, 10-13, and 17-20, Magnouche teaches these claims according to the reasoning set forth in the previous office action.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnouche US 2025/0317849 in view of Pani US 2016/0091913.
Magunouche in view of Pani was cited in the previous office action. As such, the relevant teaching are hereby incorporated by reference.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 15, Magnouche and Pani teach these claims according to the reasoning set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Magnouche fails to teach “identifying or evaluating whether an entire network device is redundant within the broader network topology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not identify or evaluate whether a network device is redundant. The claim only recites that the network device “is a redundant network device.” The updated mapping in the rejection notes that each node (network device) is able to off load traffic. The ability to off load traffic requires redundancy. Applicant has not provided details in the claim regarding the redundant nature of the network device or functionality of the network device that describes how it’s redundant. Therefore, Magnouche teaches that the network device is “a redundant network device.”
Applicant further argues that Magnouche fails to teach generating a device power control signal indicative of dynamically switching an operation state of the redundant network device to an "off state or a low- power state." Applicant also argues that Magnouche, describes setting "one or more respective components of the neighbor node" to a low-power mode. The crux of the argument seems to be that the entire network device is not switched to an off state or low power state. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites that the network device is switched to an off state or a low power state without further reciting the specifics of the states. The BRI of a low power state is when one or more components of a device are turned off or have reduced power consumption. Magnouche teaches that components are turned off or put in a low power state. This means that the network device is no longer consuming full power, but enters “a low power state” because various components are turned off. For these reasons the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaweed A Abbaszadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-1640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m.-5 p.m..
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, David Wiley can be reached at 571-272-4150. 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.
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights