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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al.
Referring to claim 1, Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 a system for providing adaptive routing, the system (OLT 10) comprising one or more circuits (circuits in OLT 10; Sections 0130, 0172, 0176, 0177) to:
Receive data from a network (PON 2 or PON 3) via a first port (port 1 or port 2, respectively). OLT 10 receives data from ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1, wherein ONU 22 – ONU 26 share upstream bandwidth of port 1. OLT 10 also receives data from ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2, wherein ONU 28 – ONU 32 share upstream bandwidth of port 2.
Determine (steps 1002, 302) a bandwidth. Section 0039: The upstream bandwidth of each of port 1 and port 2 relates to the rate of upstream data transfer through that port; the upstream bandwidth changes over time depending upon the amount of data to be transmitted from the ONUs associated with the port. Sections 0032-0100: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1.
Determine (steps 1002, 302) the bandwidth is below a threshold (maximum upstream bandwidth). Section 0040: “… enforcing a maximum upstream bandwidth for a port entails ensuring that the upstream bandwidth for that port is equal to or less than a maximum value …”. Sections 0032-0100: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines whether or not the upstream bandwidth of port 1 is below a maximum upstream bandwidth.
Generate (steps 1004, 304) an instruction packet (GATE message) in response to determining the bandwidth is above the threshold. Sections 0032-0100: If the upstream bandwidth of port 1 is above the maximum upstream bandwidth, congestion detector 60 detects congestion. Bandwidth modifier 62 then modifies the enforced maximum upstream bandwidth for port 1 by instructing upstream bandwidth allocator 52 to reduce the maximum upstream bandwidth enforced at port 1 in order to reduce the inflow of data. The maximum upstream bandwidth can be reduced by limiting the number of transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1 and/or limiting the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1. DBA engine of port 1 generates a GATE message which is used to limit the number of transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1 and/or limit the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1.
Send (steps 1004, 304) the instruction packet via the first port. Step 1004 and 304 is modifying maximum upstream bandwidth of “at least one of port 1 and port 2”, so the GATE message can be sent to just port 1. DBA engine of port 1 transmits the GATE message via port 1 to ONUs connected to port 1 to notify the ONUs of the limited number of transmission windows and/or the limited length of the one or more of the transmission windows. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Das et al do not specifically disclose … generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via the first port.
However, Das et al disclose in steps 1006, 306 wherein in response to a predetermined trigger, such as when congestion detector 60 determines that there is no longer congestion, the enforced maximum upstream bandwidth is no longer modified by bandwidth modifier 62, but is returned to its default enforcement. Although not specifically disclosed, DBA engine of port 1 can generate a GATE message to send to ONUs connected to port 1 to return to the default enforcement. When congestion is detected, DBA engine of port 1 generates a GATE message to notify ONUs connected to port 1 to limit the number of transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1 and/or limit the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1. So: although not specifically disclosed, when congestion is no longer detected, DBA engine of port 1 can generate a GATE message to notify ONUs connected to port 1 to return to the default values of the default enforcement. Also, Mital et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0008, 0017, 0028, 0033, and 0038-0040 wherein information describing a network bandwidth of a port extender device is received at a switch, wherein the port extender device is configured to provide a port for the switch. The network bandwidth of the port extender device is compared to a minimum network bandwidth guarantee threshold. If the switch determines that the network bandwidth of the port extender device is below the minimum network guarantee threshold, the switch sends to the port extender device a message (claimed “instruction packet”) configured to cause the port extender to deactivate one or more links between the port extender device and one or more servers in communication with the port extender device (claimed “generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via the first port”). So: if a bandwidth at a port is below a threshold, a message is sent via the port to deactivate links of the port. Refer to Sections 0008-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include … generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via the first port. One would have been motivated to do so that when the bandwidth of a port of a node is above a threshold, the node transmits an instruction packet indicating an action to perform when the bandwidth is above a threshold, and when the bandwidth of the port of the node is above a threshold, the node transmits an instruction packet indicating an action to perform when the bandwidth is below a threshold.
Referring to claim 2, Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 wherein the bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of the first port, and wherein the one or more circuits are further to determine a second bandwidth associated with a second port. Section 0039: The upstream bandwidth of each of port 1 and port 2 relates to the rate of upstream data transfer through that port; the upstream bandwidth changes over time depending upon the amount of data to be transmitted from the ONUs associated with the port. Sections 0032-0100: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1; congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 also determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Referring to claim 3, Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 wherein the bandwidth comprises a total bandwidth of a plurality of ports including the first port (Sections 0005 and 0052), and wherein determining the bandwidth comprises determining a total bandwidth for each of the plurality of ports (Sections 0033, 0039, and 0040). Section 0005: “If the sum of the maximum bandwidths of each of the ports servicing the ONUs is greater than the maximum bandwidth of the uplink port, then congestion may occur in the OLT.” (claimed “the bandwidth comprises a total bandwidth of a plurality of ports including the first port”). Section 0052: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1 and the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2; congestion detector 60 then sums the upstream bandwidth of PON 2 and the upstream bandwidth of PON 3 to determine if there is congestion (claimed “the bandwidth comprises a total bandwidth of a plurality of ports including the first port”). Sections 0033, 0039, and 0040: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 (claimed “determining a total bandwidth for each of the plurality of ports”) via port 1; congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 also determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 2 (claimed “determining a total bandwidth for each of the plurality of ports”) via port 2. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Referring to claim 7, Das et al do not disclose wherein after sending the instruction packet, traffic at the first port ceases.
Mital et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0008, 0017, 0028, 0033, and 0038-0040 wherein information describing a network bandwidth of a port extender device is received at a switch, wherein the port extender device is configured to provide a port for the switch. The network bandwidth of the port extender device is compared to a minimum network bandwidth guarantee threshold. If the switch determines that the network bandwidth of the port extender device is below the minimum network guarantee threshold, the switch sends to the port extender device a message (claimed “instruction packet”) configured to cause the port extender to deactivate one or more links between the port extender device and one or more servers in communication with the port extender device (claimed “after sending the instruction packet, traffic at the first port ceases”, wherein traffic ceases at the port if all of the port links are deactivated). Refer to Sections 0008-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein after sending the instruction packet, traffic at the first port ceases. One would have been motivated to do so so that if the bandwidth at a port is below a threshold of network guarantee, traffic is ceased after receiving the instruction to avoid traffic overflow.
Referring to claim 11, Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 a system for providing adaptive routing, the system (OLT 10) comprising one or more circuits (circuits in OLT 10; Sections 0130, 0172, 0176, 0177) to:
Receive data from a network (PON 2 and PON 3). OLT 10 receives data from ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1, wherein ONU 22 – ONU 26 share upstream bandwidth of port 1. OLT 10 also receives data from ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2, wherein ONU 28 – ONU 32 share upstream bandwidth of port 2.
Determine (steps 1002, 302) a total bandwidth associated with the received data. Section 0052: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1 and the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2; congestion detector 60 then sums the upstream bandwidth of PON 2 and the upstream bandwidth of PON 3 to determine if there is congestion. Section 0005: “If the sum of the maximum bandwidths of each of the ports servicing the ONUs is greater than the maximum bandwidth of the uplink port, then congestion may occur in the OLT.”.
Determine (steps 1002, 302) the total bandwidth associated with the received data is below a threshold (maximum bandwidth of uplink port). Sections 0032-0100: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines whether or not the sum of the upstream bandwidths is below a maximum bandwidth of uplink port. Section 0005: “If the sum of the maximum bandwidths of each of the ports servicing the ONUs is greater than the maximum bandwidth of the uplink port, then congestion may occur in the OLT.”.
Generate (steps 1004, 304) an instruction packet (GATE message) in response to determining the total bandwidth is above the threshold. Sections 0032-0100: If the upstream bandwidth is above the maximum bandwidth of uplink port, congestion detector 60 detects congestion. Bandwidth modifier 62 then modifies the enforced maximum upstream bandwidth for port 1 and port 2 by instructing upstream bandwidth allocator 52 and upstream bandwidth allocator 54, respectively, to each reduce the maximum upstream bandwidth enforced at port 1 and port 2 in order to reduce the inflow of data. The maximum upstream bandwidth can be reduced by limiting the number of transmission windows granted to the respective ONUs connected to port 1 and port 2 and/or limiting the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the respective ONUs connected to port 1 and port 2. DBA engine of port 1 and DBA engine of port 2 each generate a GATE message which is used to limit the number of transmission windows granted to the respective ONUs and/or limit the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the respective ONUs.
Send (steps 1004, 304) the instruction packet via a plurality of ports (port 1 and port 2). Step 1004 and 304 is modifying maximum upstream bandwidth of “at least one of port 1 and port 2”, so the GATE message can be sent to both port 1 and port 2. DBA engine of port 1 transmits the GATE message via port 1 to ONUs connected to port 1 to notify the ONUs of the limited number of transmission windows and/or the limited length of the one or more of the transmission windows. DBA engine of port 2 transmits the GATE message via port 2 to ONUs connected to port 2 to notify the ONUs of the limited number of transmission windows and/or the limited length of the one or more of the transmission windows. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Das et al do not specifically disclose … generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via a plurality of ports.
However, Das et al disclose in steps 1006, 306 wherein in response to a predetermined trigger, such as when congestion detector 60 determines that there is no longer congestion, the enforced maximum upstream bandwidth is no longer modified by bandwidth modifier 62, but is returned to its default enforcement. Although not specifically disclosed, DBA engine of port 1 and DBA engine of port 2 can each generate a GATE message to send to respective ONUs to return to the default enforcement. When congestion is detected, DBA engine of port 1 and DBA engine of port 2 each generate a GATE message to notify respective ONUs to limit the number of transmission windows granted to the respective ONUs and/or limit the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the respective ONUs. So: although not specifically disclosed, when congestion is no longer detected, DBA engine of port 1 and DBA engine of port 2 can each generate a GATE message to notify respective ONUs to return to the default values of the default enforcement. Also, Mital et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0008, 0017, 0028, 0033, and 0038-0040 wherein information describing a network bandwidth of a port extender device is received at a switch, wherein the port extender device is configured to provide ports for the switch. The network bandwidth of the port extender device is compared to a minimum network bandwidth guarantee threshold. If the switch determines that the network bandwidth of the port extender device is below the minimum network guarantee threshold, the switch sends to the port extender device a message (claimed “instruction packet”) configured to cause the port extender to deactivate one or more links between the port extender device and one or more servers in communication with the port extender device (claimed “generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via a plurality of ports”). So: if a bandwidth at ports is below a threshold, a message is sent via the ports to deactivate links of the ports. Refer to Sections 0008-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include … generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold, and send the instruction packet via a plurality of ports. One would have been motivated to do so that when the bandwidth of a port of a node is above a threshold, the node transmits an instruction packet indicating an action to perform when the bandwidth is above a threshold, and when the bandwidth of the port of the node is above a threshold, the node transmits an instruction packet indicating an action to perform when the bandwidth is below a threshold.
Referring to claim 13, Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 wherein sending the instruction packet comprises sending the instruction packet to multiple destinations (ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1 and ) via the plurality of ports (ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2). DBA engine of port 1 transmits the GATE message via port 1 to ONU 22 – ONU 26 to notify ONU 22 – ONU 26 of the limited number of transmission windows and/or the limited length of the one or more of the transmission windows. DBA engine of port 2 transmits the GATE message via port 2 to ONU 28 – ONU 32 to notify ONU 28 – ONU 32 of the limited number of transmission windows and/or the limited length of the one or more of the transmission windows. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Referring to claim 16, Das et al do not disclose wherein after sending the instruction packet, traffic at the plurality of ports ceases.
Mital et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0008, 0017, 0028, 0033, and 0038-0040 a port extender device provides a plurality of ports to a switch. Information describing a network bandwidth of a port extender device is received at a switch, wherein the port extender device is configured to provide ports for the switch. The network bandwidth of the port extender device is compared to a minimum network bandwidth guarantee threshold. If the switch determines that the network bandwidth of the port extender device is below the minimum network guarantee threshold, the switch sends to the port extender device a message (claimed “instruction packet”) configured to cause the port extender to deactivate one or more links between the port extender device and one or more servers in communication with the port extender device (claimed “after sending the instruction packet, traffic at the plurality of ports ceases”, wherein traffic ceases at the ports if all of the port links are deactivated). Refer to Sections 0008-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein after sending the instruction packet, traffic at the plurality of ports ceases. One would have been motivated to do so so that if the bandwidth at a port is below a threshold of network guarantee, traffic is ceased after receiving the instruction to avoid traffic overflow.
Referring to claim 17, Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 a system for providing adaptive routing, the system (OLT 10) comprising one or more circuits (circuits in OLT 10; Sections 0130, 0172, 0176, 0177) to:
Receive data via a first port (port 1 or port 2) of a plurality of ports (port 1 and port 2). OLT 10 receives data from ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1, wherein ONU 22 – ONU 26 share upstream bandwidth of port 1. OLT 10 also receives data from ONU 28 – ONU 32 of PON 3 via port 2, wherein ONU 28 – ONU 32 share upstream bandwidth of port 2.
Determine (steps 1002, 302) a bandwidth associated with the received data. Section 0039: The upstream bandwidth of each of port 1 and port 2 relates to the rate of upstream data transfer through that port; the upstream bandwidth changes over time depending upon the amount of data to be transmitted from the ONUs associated with the port. Sections 0032-0100: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines the upstream bandwidth utilized by ONU 22 – ONU 26 of PON 2 via port 1.
Determine (steps 1002, 302) the bandwidth associated with the received data is below a threshold (maximum upstream bandwidth). Section 0040: “… enforcing a maximum upstream bandwidth for a port entails ensuring that the upstream bandwidth for that port is equal to or less than a maximum value …”. Sections 0032-0100: congestion detector 60 of OLT 10 determines whether or not the upstream bandwidth of port 1 is below a maximum upstream bandwidth.
Generate (steps 1004, 304) an instruction packet (GATE message) in response to determining the bandwidth is above the threshold. Sections 0032-0100: If the upstream bandwidth of port 1 is above the maximum upstream bandwidth, congestion detector 60 detects congestion. Bandwidth modifier 62 then modifies the enforced maximum upstream bandwidth for port 1 by instructing upstream bandwidth allocator 52 to reduce the maximum upstream bandwidth enforced at port 1 in order to reduce the inflow of data. The maximum upstream bandwidth can be reduced by limiting the number of transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1 and/or limiting the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1. DBA engine of port 1 generates a GATE message which is used to limit the number of transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1 and/or limit the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1.
Send (steps 1004, 304) the instruction packet via the first port. Step 1004 and 304 is modifying maximum upstream bandwidth of “at least one of port 1 and port 2”, so the GATE message can be sent to just port 1. DBA engine of port 1 then transmits the GATE message via port 1 to ONUs connected to port 1 to notify the ONUs of the limited number of transmission windows and/or the limited length of the one or more of the transmission windows. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Das et al do not specifically disclose … generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via the first port.
However, Das et al disclose in steps 1006, 306 wherein in response to a predetermined trigger, such as when congestion detector 60 determines that there is no longer congestion, the enforced maximum upstream bandwidth is no longer modified by bandwidth modifier 62, but is returned to its default enforcement. Although not specifically disclosed, DBA engine of port 1 can generate a GATE message to send to ONUs connected to port 1 to return to the default enforcement. When congestion is detected, DBA engine of port 1 generates a GATE message to notify ONUs connected to port 1 to limit the number of transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1 and/or limit the length of one or more of the transmission windows granted to the ONUs connected to port 1. So: although not specifically disclosed, when congestion is no longer detected, DBA engine of port 1 can generate a GATE message to notify ONUs connected to port 1 to return to the default values of the default enforcement. Also, Mital et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Sections 0008, 0017, 0028, 0033, and 0038-0040 wherein information describing a network bandwidth of a port extender device is received at a switch, wherein the port extender device is configured to provide a port for the switch. The network bandwidth of the port extender device is compared to a minimum network bandwidth guarantee threshold. If the switch determines that the network bandwidth of the port extender device is below the minimum network guarantee threshold, the switch sends to the port extender device a message (claimed “instruction packet”) configured to cause the port extender to deactivate one or more links between the port extender device and one or more servers in communication with the port extender device (claimed “generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via the first port”). So: if a bandwidth at a port is below a threshold, a message is sent via the port to deactivate links of the port. Refer to Sections 0008-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include … generate an instruction packet in response to determining the bandwidth is below the threshold; and send the instruction packet via the first port. One would have been motivated to do so that when the bandwidth of a port of a node is above a threshold, the node transmits an instruction packet indicating an action to perform when the bandwidth is above a threshold, and when the bandwidth of the port of the node is above a threshold, the node transmits an instruction packet indicating an action to perform when the bandwidth is below a threshold.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20160301618 to Labonte et al.
Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15 … and the first port comprises an egress port. Sections 0032-0100: Port 1 reads on a claimed “egress port” since ONU 22 – ONU 26 transmits egress data to OLT 10 via port 1; port 2 also reads on a claimed “egress port” since ONU 28 – ONU 32 transmits egress data to OLT 10 via port 2. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the bandwidth comprises an egress bandwidth, and the first port comprises an egress port.
Labonte et al disclose in Figures 1-4 and Sections 0002, 0003, 0011, and 0015-0051 wherein the system determines the egress bandwidth of an egress port to determine how to route a packet; packets are routed through egress ports with enough bandwidth to support packet transmission. Refer to Sections 0002, 0003, and 0013-0057. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the bandwidth comprises an egress bandwidth, and the first port comprises an egress port. One would have been motivated to do so to use the egress bandwidth of the port to determine where to route packets out of the port based on the egress bandwidth.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11764783 to Khan et al.
Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the one or more circuits are further to enter a sleep mode after a link is idle for a period of time.
Khan et al disclose in Figures 1-7 and Column 7 lines 28-52 wherein a link controller transitions to a sleep mode when the communication link is idle for a designated period. Refer to Column 2 line 28 to Column 8 line 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more circuits are further to enter a sleep mode after a link is idle for a period of time. One would have been motivated to do so to save energy by entering a sleep mode after the link is idle for a period of time.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 11764783 to Khan et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20130202293 to Boyd et al.
Das et al, Mital et al, and Khan et al do not disclose wherein entering the sleep mode comprises disabling one or more SerDes circuits associated with the link.
Boyd et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0024, 0029, 0032, 0034, 0051, and 0078 wherein OLT instructs a CNU to enter the sleep mode. CNU enters the sleep mode by powering off its circuitry, including powering off SerDes circuits associated with the link, since CNU is connected to OLT via a link. Refer to Sections 0016-0081. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein entering the sleep mode comprises disabling one or more SerDes circuits associated with the link. One would have been motivated to do so since if a node is in sleep mode, the SerDes circuit of the node is also disabled and put into sleep mode.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6594268 to Aukia et al.
Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein a total network bandwidth is low relative to a total network capacity.
Aukia et al disclose in Figures 1-11 and Column 2 lines 47-61 wherein effective bandwidth of a packet flow defines the bandwidth of the packet flow in the network. The total effective bandwidth of all packet flows in the network can be less than the total network capacity. Refer to Column 5 line 59 to Column 27 line 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a total network bandwidth is low relative to a total network capacity. One would have been motivated to do so so that the network has more capacity to handle the total network bandwidth required by all packet flows of the network.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20200028786 to Chachmon et al.
Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the first port comprises a port of a spine switch, and wherein the data is received from a TOR switch.
Chachmon et al disclose in Figures 1-7 and Sections 0015, 0016, 0020-0022, and 0025-0026 wherein a first port of a spine switch receives data from a port of a TOR switch, such as port 160 of spine switch 1 receives data from port 140 of TOR switch 1. Refer to Sections 0011-0065. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first port comprises a port of a spine switch, and wherein the data is received from a TOR switch. One would have been motivated to do so to support different types of switches, so that a port of a spine switch can receive data from a TOR switch, thereby making the system more flexible to accommodate different switches.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20120093023 to Ficet et al.
Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the first port comprises a port of an L2 switch, and wherein the data is received from an L3 switch, and wherein the data is forwarded to an L1 switch.
Ficet et al disclose in Figures 1-7 and Sections 0075-0098, 0108, 0117, 0121, and 0129 wherein data from an L3 switch is forwarded to a port of an L2 switch, and then the data is forwarded from the port of the L2 switch to an L1 switch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first port comprises a port of an L2 switch, and wherein the data is received from an L3 switch, and wherein the data is forwarded to an L1 switch. One would have been motivated to do so to support different types of switches, so that data can be forwarded from an L3 switch to an L2 switch and then from the L2 switch to an L1 switch, thereby making the system more flexible to accommodate different switches.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20240121202 to Li et al.
Das et al, Mital et al, and do not disclose wherein the total bandwidth comprises a total egress bandwidth.
Li et al disclose in Figures 1-7 and Sections 0070 and 0092 wherein a total bandwidth is a total egress bandwidth of a plurality of ports of a switch in Figure 4. Refer to Sections 0048-0149. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the total bandwidth comprises a total egress bandwidth. One would have been motivated to do so to determine the total egress bandwidth in order to allocate bandwidth according to egress bandwidth, thereby ensuring outgoing traffic has sufficient bandwidth.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11764783 to Khan et al.
Das et al disclose in Figures 1-15… a link (link of uplink port 50) associated with the plurality of ports (port 1 and port 2) … Sections 0036, 0041, and 0043-0045: the link of uplink port receives data from port 1 and port 2. Refer to Sections 0023-0237.
Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the one or more circuits are further to enter a sleep mode after a link associated with the plurality of ports is idle for a period of time.
Khan et al disclose in Figures 1-7 and Column 7 lines 28-52 wherein a link controller transitions to a sleep mode when the communication link is idle for a designated period. Refer to Column 2 line 28 to Column 8 line 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more circuits are further to enter a sleep mode after a link associated with the plurality of ports is idle for a period of time. One would have been motivated to do so to save energy by entering a sleep mode after the link is idle for a period of time.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 11764783 to Khan et al, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 20130202293 to Boyd et al.
Das et al, Mital et al, and Khan et al do not disclose wherein entering the sleep mode comprises disabling one or more SerDes circuits associated with the link.
Boyd et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0024, 0029, 0032, 0034, 0051, and 0078 wherein OLT instructs a CNU to enter the sleep mode. CNU enters the sleep mode by powering off its circuitry, including powering off SerDes circuits associated with the link, since CNU is connected to OLT via a link. Refer to Sections 0016-0081. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein entering the sleep mode comprises disabling one or more SerDes circuits associated with the link. One would have been motivated to do so since if a node is in sleep mode, the SerDes circuit of the node is also disabled and put into sleep mode.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20130039182 to Das et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 20150215169 to Mital et al, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11868292 to Vaskevich.
Referring to claim 18, Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein prior to determining the bandwidth associated with the first port, the one or more circuits are to select the first port using a selection process.
Vaskevich et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Column 1 line 57 to Column 8 line 15 wherein a system uses round robin to arbitrate between the ports by allocating a bandwidth budget to each port and arbitrate among the ports in a round-robin manner for each round of budget allocation. The round robin algorithm selects a first port to transmit a packet by considering its corresponding budget in that round to balance the bandwidth allocated to each port and ensure that each port can get a minimum of its allocated bandwidth. Once a port is selected, the size of the packet is subtracted from the port's bandwidth budget after the port has finished transmitting the packet. Once each port has consumed its budget in the current round of budget allocation after transmitting one or more packets, new budget may be allocated for the next round of budget allocation. So, the system selects a first port using round robin and then determines the bandwidth of the first port in order to determine a bandwidth budget for the first port (claimed “prior to determining the bandwidth associated with the first port, the one or more circuits are to select the first port using a selection process”). Refer to Column 1 line 46 to Column 18 line 41. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein prior to determining the bandwidth associated with the first port, the one or more circuits are to select the first port using a selection process. One would have been motivated to do so to select a port using round robin and then determine the bandwidth of the selected port, thereby ensuring fairness in bandwidth allocation among the ports.
Referring to claim 19, Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the selection process comprises round-robin.
Vaskevich et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Column 1 line 57 to Column 8 line 15 wherein a system uses round robin to arbitrate between the ports by allocating a bandwidth budget to each port and arbitrate among the ports in a round-robin manner for each round of budget allocation. The round robin algorithm selects a first port to transmit a packet by considering its corresponding budget in that round to balance the bandwidth allocated to each port and ensure that each port can get a minimum of its allocated bandwidth. Refer to Column 1 line 46 to Column 18 line 41. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the selection process comprises round-robin. One would have been motivated to do so to select a port for bandwidth allocation using round robin, thereby ensuring fairness in bandwidth allocation among the ports.
Referring to claim 20, Das et al and Mital et al do not disclose wherein the one or more circuits are further to select a second port using the selection process after sending the instruction packet.
Vaskevich et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Column 1 line 57 to Column 8 line 15 wherein a system uses round robin to arbitrate between the ports by allocating a bandwidth budget to each port and arbitrate among the ports in a round-robin manner for each round of budget allocation. The round robin algorithm selects a first port to transmit a packet by considering its corresponding budget in that round to balance the bandwidth allocated to each port and ensure that each port can get a minimum of its allocated bandwidth. Once a port is selected, the size of the packet is subtracted from the port's bandwidth budget after the port has finished transmitting the packet. Once each port has consumed its budget in the current round of budget allocation after transmitting one or more packets, new budget (claimed “instruction packet”) may be allocated for the next round of budget allocation. After the new budget is allocated, the system uses round robin to select a second port to allocate a bandwidth budget to (claimed “select a second port using the selection process after sending the instruction packet”). Refer to Column 1 line 46 to Column 18 line 41. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein prior to determining the bandwidth associated with the first port, the one or more circuits are to select the first port using a selection process. One would have been motivated to do so to select a second port using round robin and then determine the bandwidth of the selected second port, thereby ensuring fairness in bandwidth allocation among the ports.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 20090016358 to Lee et al disclose in Figures 1-5 and Section 0017 wherein a router determines whether the bandwidth utilization of its two WAN connection ports is greater than a predetermined upper threshold or less than a lower threshold; if greater than an upper threshold, the virtual WAN function is actuated; if less than a lower threshold, then the virtual WAN function is suspended. Refer to Sections 0015-0021.
U.S. Publication No. 20070093124 to Varney et al disclose in Figures 1-3 and Sections 0039-041 wherein if a node determines that a port comprises multiple links and the bandwidth utilization is below a predetermined threshold, the number of links is reduced. Refer to Sections 0028-0054.
U.S. Publication No. 20220094633 to Chen et al disclose in Figure 1-5 and Section 0024 wherein a bandwidth utilization rate is a ratio of the current access traffic on a port to a total bandwidth of the port; a port whose bandwidth utilization rate is greater than or equal to a first utilization rate threshold is determined as the traffic transfer-out port, and a port whose bandwidth utilization rate is less than or equal to a second utilization rate threshold is determined as the traffic transfer-in port. Refer to Sections 0015-0056.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y NG whose telephone number is (571)272-3124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm-9pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/Christine Ng/
Examiner, AU 2464
February 3, 2026