DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
No domestic benefit or foreign priority is claimed by this Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 29 Apr 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
A. Claims 1, 14, and 18 recite, in part, “instruct such switches to mirror network traffic of the source port to the request node.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the request node.” The Examiner believes “request” needs replaced with “requester.” See e.g. claim 1, line 4 (“a requester node”). Claims 12 and 13 also recite “the request node.”
B. Claim 4 recites, in part, “the received code.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Perhaps claim 4 is attempting to refer back to claim 1’s “the source-node associated code.”
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 1-4, 7, 12-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20140122704) in view of Yun (US 20180102987).
Regarding claims 1, 71, and 14, and 18, Wang teaches a method, a [device] comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed, direct one or more processors to perform operations that facilitate dynamic traffic monitoring of automotive Ethernet traffic across a network topology, the operations comprising:
receiving, by a facilitator node via an . . . Ethernet network (Wang, ¶¶2, 30-31 – network 100 is a layer 2 network that utilizes an “Ethernet header”), a traffic-mirroring request from a requester node (Wang, e.g. ¶¶23, 26 – network switches 1 and 5 receives a request from network switch 3, where the request is used to determine any switch or RB with a corresponding mirroring destination port for P1),
wherein the traffic-mirroring request includes a code that is associated with a source node in the . . . Ethernet network, which has a network topology of multiple interconnected switches (Wang, ¶26 – request includes VLAN ID of the mirror VLAN; Wang, ¶21 – mirror VLAN is used to mirror packets from server S1 [i.e. a source node] within the network of inter-connected switches shown in figure 1);
based on the source-node associated code, determining a source port and a source switch through which the source node directly links to the . . . Ethernet network (Wang, figure 1 and ¶21 – S1 directly connects to network 100 via port P1 on network switch 3);
obtaining a network topology matrix (Wang, ¶19 – each network switch 1-5 learns the full topology of network 100),
wherein each entry in the network topology matrix specifies which one or more ports of a switch are directly connected to which one or more ports of directly connected switches of the multiple interconnected switches of the network topology (Wang, ¶¶22, 30 – a correspondence between the mirroring source port and the mirroring destination port is stored as an entry in a table of a network switch);
based on the network topology matrix, determining a traffic-mirroring network path between the source node and the requester node, wherein the determining of the traffic-mirroring network path includes calculating an optimal network path between the source node and the requester node (Wang, ¶20 – each network switch can calculate the optimal path for unicast frames); and
assigning the calculated optimal network path to the traffic-mirroring network path (Wang, ¶¶30-31 and figure 3 – network switch 3 places the mirror VLAN tag on data from S1 and forwards it to network switch 1, which in turn, forwards it to network switch 5).
Wang does not explicitly teach (1) a “vehicle” implementing an “automotive” Ethernet network or (2) “initiating mirroring of network traffic of the source node by sending, by the facilitator node via the automotive Ethernet network, traffic-mirroring instructions to switches in the determined traffic-mirroring network path that instruct such switches to mirror network traffic of the source port to the request node.” However, Yun teaches (1) port mirroring in an Ethernet-based vehicle network, where a VLAN ID corresponds to a function code. Yun, ¶¶2, 101, 109. Yun also teaches (2) one of the switches in the vehicle network sending a message to other switches for the switches to perform port mirroring. Id. at ¶¶110, 112 (first switch instructs second switch, fifth end node, and sixth end node to perform port mirroring). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple devices execute port mirroring, as taught by Yun, for devices along the path from the source node to the requester node, as taught by Wang, in order to ensure mirroring by all devices involved in a vital function of the vehicle. See e.g. id. at ¶69 (a first function may be gear shifting).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wang and Yun also teaches wherein the requester node connects to a requester port of a requester switch of the multiple interconnected switches of the network topology (Wang, figure 1 – network switch 3 is connected to network switches 1 and 5) and the request from the requester node is associated with an identification of the requester port and the requester switch. Wang, ¶26 (the request from network switch 3 includes the VLAN ID of the mirror VLAN); Wang, ¶24 (mirror VLAN is based on the source mirroring group for destination port for source port P1).
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 19, the combination of Wang and Yun also teaches wherein the source-node associated code that is selected from a group consisting of an indicator of the source node, an indicator of the source port and source switch of the source node, an automotive diagnostic code that is indicative of the source node, and a combination thereof. Wang, ¶30 (mirror VLAN ID for mirroring source port P1 of network switch 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Wang and Yun also teaches wherein the determination of the source port and source switch includes:
obtaining a table of node-associated codes (Wang, ¶30 – table of stored correspondence information);
finding an entry in the table that matches the received code (Wang, ¶30 – looks up mirror VLAN ID for the source port P1);
extracting an identification of a switch and one of its ports from the entry (Wang, ¶30 and figure 3 – see difference between message 301 and message 302 for information that is extracted when re-labeling the payload, which includes identification of egress and ingress RBs [i.e. switches] and source and destination MAC addresses [i.e. port or network interface card]); and
assigning the identified switch and port as the source port and the source switch through which the source node directly links to the automotive Ethernet network. Wang, figure 3 (in message 302, network switch 3 is assigned as ingress RB and outer S-MAC is network switch 3’s MAC address).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wang and Yun also teaches wherein the traffic-mirroring instructions directly command the switches in the determined traffic-mirroring network path to mirror network traffic of the source port to the request node. Yun, ¶¶110, 112 (first switch instructs second switch, fifth end node, and sixth end node to perform port mirroring).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang and Yun also teaches wherein the traffic-mirroring instructions requests that the switches in the determined traffic-mirroring network path cooperate in mirroring network traffic of the source port to the request node. Yun, ¶¶110, 112 (first switch instructs second switch, fifth end node, and sixth end node to perform port mirroring).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20140122704) in view of Yun (US 20180102987) and further in view of Emmadi (US 20160234091).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang and Yun teaches method of claim 1 and each network switch learning the full topology of its network (Wang, ¶19), but does not explicitly teach “wherein each entry in the network topology matrix specifies which one or more ports of a switch are directly connected to which one or more ports of directly connected switches of the multiple interconnected switches of the network topology.” However, Emmadi teaches an Ethernet network implementing packet mirroring (Emmadi, ¶¶54, 77), in which each switch maintains a LAG mapping table that identifies the one or more ports of that switch and other switches in the network that are assigned to a LAG group. Emmadi, ¶89. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify the switch ports of a LAG, as taught by Emmadi, when forwarding mirrored traffic to the data monitoring device, taught by the combination of Wang and Yun, in order to implement one or more LAG(s) for forwarding the traffic for monitoring. Emmadi, ¶93. The LAGs provide redundancy should a port failure occur and also traffic balancing. Id. at ¶¶87-88.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20140122704) in view of Yun (US 20180102987) and further in view of Xhafa (US 20060268879).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang and Yun teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “detecting, by the facilitator node, a change to the network topology; and updating the network topology matrix accordingly.” However, Xhafa teaches every node in a network maintaining a topology graph of the network. Xhafa, ¶35. And each node reports, to its neighboring nodes, the updates to its routing table based on topology changes. Xhafa, ¶¶7, 36. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to update based on changes, as taught by Xhafa, the topology stored by the switches, taught by the combination of Wang and Yun, in order to ensure routing is based on the most accurate network topology, which also minimizing overhead. Id. at ¶38.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang and Yun teaches the method of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the calculation of the optimal network path employs zero weighting to determine a shortest path.” However, Xhafa teaches using Dijkstra’s algorithm to determine the shortest path. Xhafa, ¶33. The path determination considers several weighted metrics. Id. at ¶¶21-22. In at least one embodiment, the metrics are equally weighted (i.e. zero weighted). Id., claim 8. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal path, as taught by the combination of Wang and Yun, based on equal weighting of several metrics, as taught by Xhafa, in order to coordinate and optimize the computed path/route based on QoS. Id. at ¶21.
Claims 9-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20140122704) in view of Yun (US 20180102987) and further in view of Hughes (US 2009011639).
Regarding claim 9, 17, and 20, the combination of Wang and Yun teaches the method of claim 7, vehicle of claim 14, and the medium of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the calculation of the optimal network path employs weighting to determine a shortest path.” However, Hughes teaches using Dijkstra’s algorithm to determine the shortest path. Hughes, ¶54. The path determination considers several weighted metrics. Id. at ¶54; see also id., ¶¶45-46 (calculation of a node’s weight). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal path, as taught by the combination of Wang and Yun, based on weighted metrics, as taught by Hughes, in order to adjust the path determination based on service level. Id. at ¶55; see also id. at ¶51 for weighting the node’s bandwidth based on traffic types.
Regarding claims 10, 17, and 20, the combination of Wang, Yun, and Hughes also teaches wherein the weighting is based upon a determination of functional traffic on each port and/or switch in a network path. Hughes, ¶¶45-46 (a node’s weight is calculated based on its total transmit and receive bandwidth requirements on each link of a node); see also id. at ¶¶50-51 for output bandwidth being capacity of a node, such as time slots, queue length, or number of packets.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wang, Yun, and Hughes also teaches wherein the facilitator node tracks the functional traffic on each port and/or switch of the network topology. Hughes, ¶¶43-45 (each node gathers resource metrics from its neighboring nodes, including output bandwidth/input bandwidth); Hughes, ¶59 (each nodes stores topology information and provides it to all its neighbors).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
1 The scope of dependent claim 7 is commensurate with the scope of independent claims 14 and 18. As a result, claim 1 is the broadest independent claim.
Prosecution Insights