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 .
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
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. -Applicant argued that regarding the 112 rejection “The Examiner asserts that claim 1 is indefinite because: (A) a "networking protocol connection" cannot "inform" switches whether an application is live, (B) LACP is a Layer 2 protocol and therefore cannot be "bonded at the application layer," and (C) the specification allegedly does not explain how such application layer bonding occurs. (Office Action, pp. 3-4.) Applicant respectfully disagrees, as the invention discloses the method of the application using LACP to inform the switch about the application status”.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees:
[0033] discloses only “LACP bonding at the application layer provides inherent fail-over, high availability and load-balancing”.
With respect to applicant`s argument of examiner`s rejection regarding “(A) a "networking protocol connection" to "inform" switches whether an application is live” is not clear is not persuasive:
-The networking protocol connection usually is a state, association, channel, communication relationship between endpoints. The actual actor of doing action such as informing is something like processor, network device, protocol entity, application or endpoint. A connection that represents a session, a channel, communication connection does not have processing power to perform functions. It is passively used to transmit data. It is not clear how the connection in and of itself informs the one or more switches whether at least one of the one or more applications is live. It is not clear what mechanism is used to inform the status such as heartbeat message or active monitoring is used hence rendering it indefinite.
With respect to applicant`s argument of examiner`s rejection regarding “(B) LACP is a Layer 2 protocol and therefore it is not clear how it is "bonded at the application layer," is not persuasive:
- Networking protocol such as LACP is a protocol at layer 2 that is used to bond interfaces such as NIC or ports at lower layers. Therefore, It is not clear how network protocol such as LACP used to bond connections at application layer. The specification does not state or explain as to how network protocol such as LACP is used to bond connections at application layer albeit for mere mentioning the statement in [0032-0033]. Network protocol such as LACP is layer 2 protocol that is used to bond links at layer 2. It is therefore unclear what structure or configuration change is required by “the networking protocol or connections to be bonded at application layer.
With respect to applicant`s argument of Examiners rejection regarding “ (C) the specification allegedly does not explain how such application layer bonding occurs without undue experimentation to enable the limitation, The specification does not sufficiently describe” is not persuasive:
-Networking protocol (such as LACP, PAgP, MLAG as indicated in the disclosure) which are understood to be link aggregation control protocols operating and aggregated at the data link layer which are used to bundle multiple physical links into a single logical channel at layer 2. It is not clear how they are bonded at application layer. The specification only in [0033] discloses “LACP bonding at the application layer provides inherent fail-over, high availability and load-balancing”. It does not indicate full explanation methods and structure that performs the function of bonding the LACP networking protocol that function at layer 2 at application layer except for giving a mere statement. LACP bonding at application layer is not known in the art. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation. A PHOSITA that has information of “LACP bonding at the application layer provides inherent fail-over, high availability and load-balancing” would not have a subject matter that is described in such a way as to enable a PHOSITA, to make, perform and/or use of LACP bonding at the application layer without undue experimentation. The specification does not teach skilled artisan how to implement that functionality without undue experimentation.
-35 USC 112 (a) requires that The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding the 103 rejection, the rejection is not included in this office action, pending the above 112 issues to be resolved. Applicants’ argument are moot to this rejection.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 8 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.
-Claim 1 recites “wherein the networking protocol connection is configured to inform the one or more switches whether at least one of the one or more applications is live”
The networking protocol connection usually is a state, association, channel, communication relationship between endpoints. The actual actor of doing action such as informing is something like processor, network device, protocol entity, application or endpoint. A connection that represents a session, a channel, communication connection does not have processing power to perform functions. It is passively used to transmit data. It is not clear how the connection in and of itself informs the one or more switches whether at least one of the one or more applications is live. It is not clear what mechanism is used to inform the status such as heartbeat message or active monitoring is used.
-Claim 1 recites “the LACP connection is bonded at the application layer in the one or more applications”. Networking protocol such as LACP is a protocol at layer 2 that is used to bond interfaces such as NIC or ports at lower layers. Therefore, It is not clear how network protocol such as LACP used to bond connections at application layer. The specification does not state or explain as to how network protocol such as LACP is used to bond connections at application layer albeit for mere mentioning the statement in [0032-0033]. Network protocol such as LACP is layer 2 protocol that is used to bond links at layer 2. It is therefore unclear what structure or configuration change is required by “the networking protocol or connections to be bonded at application layer.
-Claim recites the limitation “The LACP connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim mentions connection. LACP connection is mentioned for the first time.
-The claim introduces LACP. The abbreviation introduced for the first time should be written in full terms to make it clear which LACP it is referring to.
-The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
-Claim 1 recites:
1/ “wherein the networking protocol connection is configured to inform the one or more switches whether at least one of the one or more applications is live”;
However, the networking protocol connection usually is a state, association, channel, communication relationship between endpoints. The actual action such as informing is something like performed by processor, network device, protocol entity, application or endpoint. A connection that represents a session, a channel, communication connection does not have processing power to perform functions. It is passively used to transmit data. The specification does not indicate full explanations, methods and structure that indicates how connection perform an action in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not teach skilled artisan how to implement that functionality without undue experimentation.
2/ “…the LACP connection is bonded at the application layer in the one or more applications to provide inherent fail-over, higher availability and load-balancing”.
The specification does not sufficiently describe:
how a networking protocol (such as LACP, PAgP, MLAG as indicated in the disclosure) which are understood to be link aggregation control protocols operating and aggregated at the data link layer which are used to bundle multiple physical links into a single logical channel at layer 2, is bonded at application layer. The specification in [0033] discloses only “LACP bonding at the application layer provides inherent fail-over, high availability and load-balancing”. It does not indicate full explanation methods and structure that performs the function of bonding the LACP networking protocol that function at layer 2 at application layer except for giving a mere statement. LACP bonding at application layer is not known in the art. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. A PHOSITA that has information of “LACP bonding at the application layer provides inherent fail-over, high availability and load-balancing” would not have a subject matter that is described in such a way as to enable a PHOSITA, to make, perform and/or use of LACP bonding at the application layer. The specification does not teach skilled artisan how to implement that functionality without undue experimentation.
35 USC 112 (a) requires that The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 MESSERET F GEBRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM-5:30PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571-2701684. 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.
/MESSERET F GEBRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights