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
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. -Applicant argued that the combination does not disclose:
"identifying, by a device, an action to be performed in a computer network to reduce energy consumption by the computer network;
determining, by the device, whether performance of the action in the computer network will result in a performance degradation in the computer network; and
devising, by the device, a rerouting strategy for the computer network, when performance of the action in the computer network will result in a performance degradation."
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Fardid discloses for shutdown in the network to be performed, performing simulation to project the effect of the shutdown and reconfiguring the topology of the network to avoid impact and performing the shutdown. Fardid in [0043-0044] discloses method 500 assesses the projected response of the modified reference topology to reference traffic comprises performing a simulation by applying the reference traffic to the modified reference topology. In some implementations, the user or operator of the network receives the simulation results and/or approves the topology changes. [0044] As represented by block 5-3, the method 500 includes scheduling at least partial shut-down of the node in response to determining that the one or more performance criteria are satisfied. For example, with reference to FIGS. 4A-4B, the network controller 110 or a component thereof (e.g., the deployer module 234 in FIG. 2) schedules at least partial shut-down of the node 404-E to conform the network to the modified reference topology. Furthermore, in some implementations, the network controller 110 or a component thereof also re-routes or merges one or more tunnels traversing the first node.
[0048] further discloses selecting a highest ranked node that satisfies a power efficiency criterion; modifying a reference topology of the network by removing the selected node; performing a simulation by applying reference traffic to the modified reference topology; determining whether the results of the simulation satisfy one or more performance criteria; and scheduling shut-down of the selected node.
Van further discloses planned network maintenance can also be reported automatically to affected network actors… e.g., when the maintenance is scheduled to occur, how long the planned maintenance is likely to take, etc. The alert can then automatically be propagated up through abstract stores 140 in. For example, if a switch or other network resource needs to be taken off-line for a brief period of time, an alert can be sent notifying all services that depend on that switch of the impending maintenance so that affected services can be re-routed before the planned maintenance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fardid (US pg. no. 20170099210), further in view of Van (US pg. no. 20150365288).
Regarding claim 1. Fardid discloses a method comprising: identifying, by a device, an action to be performed in a computer network to reduce energy consumption by the computer network ([0038] FIG. 5 is a flowchart representation of a method 500 of energy-aware routing in accordance with some implementations. In various implementations, the method 500 is performed by a network controller…the method 500 includes: modifying a reference (logical) topology by removing of a node from the reference topology (identified action to be performed in a computer network to reduce energy consumption by the computer network); determining whether one or more performance criteria are satisfied based on assessing a projected response of the modified topology to reference traffic; and scheduling shut-down of the node in response to determining that the one or more performance criteria are satisfied.…[0039] To that end, as represented by block 5-1, the method 500 includes modifying a reference topology by removing at least a portion of a node from the reference topology, where the mode is associated with a power efficiency criterion. In some implementations, the node is one of a router, a line card, an interface, or a bundle of one or more ports… [0041] As represented by block 5-2, the method 500 includes determining whether one or more performance criteria are satisfied based on assessing a projected response of the modified topology to reference traffic);
determining, by the device, whether performance of the action in the computer network will result in a performance degradation in the computer network ([0039] as represented by block 5-1, the method 500 includes modifying a reference topology by removing at least a portion of a node from the reference topology, where the mode is associated with a power efficiency criterion. In some implementations, the node is one of a router, a line card, an interface, or a bundle of one or more ports… [0041] As represented by block 5-2, the method 500 includes determining (determining) whether one or more performance criteria are satisfied based on assessing a projected response of the modified topology to reference traffic. For example, with reference to FIGS. 4A-4B, the network controller 110 or a component thereof (e.g., the analysis module 232 in FIG. 2) determines whether one or more performance criteria (e.g., a latency threshold, a bandwidth utilization threshold, a redundancy criterion, a power consumption threshold, and/or the like) based on assessing or determining a projected response of the modified reference topology; fig. 5 5-1 discloses the controller modifies the logical topology where at 5-1, the method 500 includes modifying a reference topology by removing at least a portion of a node from the reference topology, where the mode is associated with a power efficiency criterion; at 5-2 the controller determines whether one or more performance criteria are satisfied based on assessing a projected response of the modified reference topology to reference (test) traffic. If the performance criteria is not satisfied, goes back to step 5-1 and modify the reference topology such as: removing at least a portion of a node from the reference topology, where the mode is associated with a power efficiency criterion and determine iteratively if performance criterion is satisfied. If performance criterion on the new logical topology is satisfied at 5-3 the controller schedules re-routes or merges one or more tunnels traversing the first nodes affected in the topology to make the performance criterion satisfied);
devising, by the device, a rerouting strategy for the computer network, when performance of the action in the computer network will result in a performance degradation (fig. 5 5-1 discloses the controller modifies the logical topology where at 5-1, the method 500 includes modifying a reference topology by removing at least a portion of a node from the reference topology, where the mode is associated with a power efficiency criterion; at 5-2 the controller determines whether one or more performance criteria are satisfied based on assessing a projected response of the modified reference topology to reference (test) traffic. If the performance criteria is not satisfied, goes back to step 5-1 and modify the reference topology such as: removing at least a portion of a node from the reference topology, where the mode is associated with a power efficiency criterion and determine iteratively if performance criterion is satisfied. If performance criterion on the new logical topology is satisfied at 5-3 the controller schedules re-routes or merges one or more tunnels traversing the first nodes affected in the topology to make the performance criterion satisfied); and
But, Fardid does not explicitly disclose: implementing, by the device, the rerouting strategy in advance of performance of the action in the computer network, to mitigate against the performance degradation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Van discloses implementing, by the device, the rerouting strategy in advance of performance of the action in the computer network, to mitigate against the performance degradation ([0158] discloses planned network maintenance can also be reported automatically to affected network actors…For example, if a switch or other network resource needs to be taken off-line for a brief period of time, an alert can be sent notifying all services that depend on that switch of the impending maintenance so that affected services can be re-routed before the planned maintenance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Fardid with Van. The modification would allow pre-emptive network reconfiguration prior to scheduled event top avoid network disruption to ensure continued network service.
Regarding claim 2. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
Van discloses, wherein the action removes a resource from the computer network and the rerouting strategy reroutes traffic away from that resource ([0158] discloses planned network maintenance can also be reported automatically to affected network actors…For example, if a switch or other network resource needs to be taken off-line for a brief period of time, an alert can be sent notifying all services that depend on that switch of the impending maintenance so that affected services can be re-routed before the planned maintenance).
Regarding claim 5. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
Fardid further discloses, further comprising: determining whether implementation of the rerouting strategy has caused degraded performance in the computer network; and, if so, adjusting the rerouting strategy in advance of performance of the action in the computer network (fig. 5 5-1 and 5-2 discloses implementation of routing strategy simulation of the network for planned event, and at 5-2 it determines if the routing strategy enables nodes in the network meet the performance criteria (requirement). If it does not, it would readjust the routing strategy at step 5-1 until the performance criteria is satisfied prior to applying it to a real network).
Regarding claim 8. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
Fardid discloses, wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: lowering a priority of a resource affected by the action to be performed ([0060] discloses the network controller 110 or a component thereof (e.g., a tunnel configuration unit (not shown) of the deployer module 234 in FIG. 2) gracefully handles the shut-down (action) of the node by increasing its traffic engineering (TE) metrics (e.g., “poisoning” the node) to avoid packet loss or setting its associated IS-IS overload bit (or its equivalent in OSPF) that corresponds to lowering priority of the node).
Regarding claim 9. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
Fardid further discloses, wherein the rerouting strategy comprises a series of change to be applied to the computer network at scheduled times ([0085] discloses the method 700 includes shutting down the selected device(s)/component(s). For example, the network controller 110 or a component thereof (e.g., the deployer module 234 in FIG. 2) schedules shut-down of the highest ranked device or its highest ranked component by shutting down the highest ranked device or its highest ranked component. Continuing with this example, in some circumstances, the network controller 110 or a component thereof (e.g., the deployer module 234 in FIG. 2) schedules shut-down of the subsequently selected next-highest ranked devices or their highest ranked component by shutting down the subsequently selected next-highest ranked devices or their highest ranked component).
Regarding claim 10. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
Fardid discloses, wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: sending an instruction to a network controller for the computer network ([0083] As represented by block 7-13, the method 700 includes scheduling deployment of the network change(s). For example, the network controller 110 or a component thereof (e.g., the deployer module 234 (controller) in FIG. 2) schedules shut-down of the highest ranked device or its highest ranked component and/or any subsequently selected next-highest ranked devices or their highest ranked component. The instruction received by the component to implement deployment corresponds to instruction received).
Regarding claim 11. In the combination Fardid discloses an apparatus (fig. 1 controller 124), comprising:
one or more network interfaces (fig. 1 discloses controller 124 is integrated in the network 102. The network interface corresponds to network interface).
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (fig. 1 discloses controller 124 that has processor and memory); and
a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor (fig. 1 discloses controller 124 that has processor and memory), the process when executed configured to:
All other limitations of claim 11 are similar with the limitations of claim 1, and are rejected on the analysis of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations of claim 12 are similar with the limitations of claim 2 above and are rejected on similar basis.
Regarding claim 15. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations of claim 15 are similar with the limitations of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations of claim 18 are similar with the limitations of claim 8 and are rejected on similar basis.
Regarding claim 19. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations of claim 19 are similar with the limitations of claim 9 above and are rejected on similar basis.
Regarding claim 20. In the combination Fardid discloses a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a device (fig. 1 controller (device) has a memory) to execute a process comprising:
All other limitations of claim 20 are similar with the limitations of claim 1 above and are rejected on similar basis.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fardid (US pg. no. 20170099210), further in view of Van (US pg. no. 20150365288), further in view of Ali (US pg. no. 7457248).
Regarding claim 3. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: causing an Intermediate System to Intermediate System (ISIS) protocol message to be sent in the computer network with an overload bit set.
However, in the same field of endeavor, wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: causing an Intermediate System to Intermediate System (ISIS) protocol message to be sent in the computer network with an overload bit set(col. 10, lines 47-51 discloses a node executing the IS-IS protocol that acquires an advertisement indicating the issuing node is "overloaded’ (i.e., the overload bit is set in the advertisement) regenerates its routing database in a manner that excludes the overloaded node from the database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Ali. The modification would allow communicating link state before shutdown to gracefully shutdown by enabling preemptive rerouting to avoid network disruption.
Regarding claim 4. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose, wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: causing Open Shortest Path First weights of links attached to a resource being removed from the computer network by the action to be maximized.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ali disclose wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: causing Open Shortest Path First weights of links attached to a resource being removed from the computer network by the action to be maximized (col. 9, lines 11-18 discloses Nodes executing the OSPF protocol exchange information using link-state advertisements called LSAs. Like LSPs, LSAS contain information that is used to generate a topology of the network and Subsequently a forwarding (routing) data base. Also, like the IS-IS protocol, an intermediate node executing the OSPF protocol generates an LSA and floods the LSA to its neighboring nodes, which, in turn, flood the LSA to their neighboring nodes and so on; col. 10, lines 14-28 If one or more previously advertised links are being gracefully shut down, an advertisement that omits the previously advertised links that are being gracefully shut down is generated and flooded to the neigh boring nodes. Alternatively, if it is desired that the resource accept locally terminated traffic while disallowing/discouraging transit traffic, a “max metric' technique may be used. According to this technique, an advertisement message is generated that associates the resource with a maximum cost (maximized weight). The generated message is then flooded to the intermediate node's neighboring nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Ali. The modification would allow communicating link state before shutdown to gracefully shutdown by enabling preemptive rerouting to avoid network disruption.
Regarding claim 13. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations of claim 11 are similar with the limitations of claim 3 and are rejected on similar basis.
Regarding claim 14. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations of claim 14 are similar with the limitations of claim 4 ad are rejected on similar basis.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fardid (US pg. no. 20170099210), and Van (US pg. no. 20150365288), further in view of Makati (US pg. no. 20180213412).
Regarding claim 6. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: causing a wireless access point in the computer network to perform client steering.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Makati discloses, wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: causing a wireless access point in the computer network to perform client steering ([0019] discloses Making the steering decisions may require each AP to perform an iterative process whereby a steering decision is made for each client associated with another AP. In this manner and with respect to the exemplary illustration of FIG. 1, AP1 may be required to make steering decisions for clients A, B, C, D, E, F and G; AP2 may be required to make steering decisions for clients B, C, D, E, F and G; and AP3 may be required to make steering decisions for clients A and C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Makati. The modification would allow steering clients away from gracefully shutting down device to enable continued network service.
Regarding claim 16. The combination discloses apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations are similar with the limitations of claim 6 and claim 16 is rejected on the analysis of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fardid (US pg. no. 20170099210), and Van (US pg. no. 20150365288), further in view of Zinjuvadia (US pat. no. 7760668).
Regarding claim 7. The combination discloses method as in claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: adjusting a spanning tree configuration of the computer network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zimjuvadia discloses wherein implementing the rerouting strategy comprises: adjusting a spanning tree configuration of the computer network (col. 16, lines 55-58 discloses Once a switch registers an MSTP Instance ID and maps attributes to that instance, all other switches in the bridged LAN follow the registration and modify their spanning tree configurations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Zimjuvadia. The modification would allow reconfiguring topology before network change to enable rerouting to avoid network disruption.
Regarding claim 17. The apparatus as in claim 11.
All other limitations are similar with the limitations of claim 7 and claim 17 is rejected on the analysis of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US pg. no. 20250287287
-US pg. no. 20250071026
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 9:00 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 at 5712701684. 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