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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
Abstract
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in lines 3-4, “based on a one or more" should be read "based on one or more".
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 4, "based on a one or more" should be read "based on one or more".
In Claim 11, line 7, "based on a one or more" should be read "based on one or more".
In Claim 16, line 6, "based on a one or more" should be read "based on one or more".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Druta (“Druta”, US 20240214300).
Regarding Claim 1, Druta teaches a method comprising: identifying, from a header provided with a packet received at a first device, a sustainability policy associated with the packet (par 24; The sustainability policy is the flag/indicator.);
selecting a path to a next device along a route to a destination endpoint based on a one or more sustainability metrics associated with the path and the sustainability policy (par 24; The sustainability policy is the flag/indicator.);
and transmitting the packet using the path to the next device (par 24).
Regarding Claim 2, Druta teaches the method of claim 1.
Druta further teaches wherein the sustainability policy indicates a policy for routing the packet based on a utilization of sustainability metrics (par 24; The sustainability policy is the flag/indicator.).
Regarding Claim 3, Druta teaches the method of claim 1.
Druta further teaches wherein the one or more sustainability metrics includes a device energy demand metric of the next device (par 24; The sustainability policy is the flag/indicator. The device energy demand metric is the energy efficient routing.).
Regarding Claim 4, Druta teaches the method of claim 3.
Druta further teaches wherein the one or more sustainability metrics includes a link energy demand metric based on link speed between the first device and the next device (par 24; par 33; The sustainability policy is the flag/indicator. The device energy demand metric is the energy efficient routing. The link energy demand metric is the best performance routing.).
Regarding Claim 5, Druta teaches the method of claim 1.
Druta further teaches wherein the first device and the next device are switches among a plurality of switches included in a switched communications fabric (par 18-19; par 24).
Regarding Claim 6, Druta teaches the method of claim 5.
Druta further teaches wherein one or more sustainability metrics are included in a routing table stored on the first device (par 20).
Regarding Claim 7, Druta teaches the method of claim 5.
Druta teaches further comprising: determining a sustainability metric of the first device (par 18-19; par 24; The sustainability metric is the flag/indicator.);
and reporting the sustainability metric of the first device to one or more other devices in the switched communications fabric (par 18-19; par 24; The sustainability metric is the flag/indicator.).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, Druta teaches the computer program product of claim 16.
Druta further teaches wherein the one or more sustainability metrics includes a device energy demand metric of the next device read from a routing table (par 24).
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Druta in view of Freeman (“Freeman”, US 6252917).
Regarding Claim 8, Druta teaches the method of claim 1.
Druta does not explicitly teach further comprising: updating an energy demand counter in the header of the packet prior to transmitting the packet.
Freeman teaches further comprising: updating an energy demand counter in the header of the packet prior to transmitting the packet (Col. 7 lines 38-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Druta with the number of iterations of Freeman because it allows for the decoding of noise corrupted signals up to a predetermined error rate (Freeman; Col. 7 lines 38-57), thereby improving quality of packets.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 8.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Druta in view of Olson et al (“Olson”, US 7804862).
Regarding Claim 10, Druta teaches the method of claim 1.
Druta does not explicitly teach wherein the first device and the next device are among a plurality of devices in a Fibre Channel fabric; and wherein the packet is routed through the Fibre Channel fabric.
Olson teaches wherein the first device and the next device are among a plurality of devices in a Fibre Channel fabric (Col. 4 lines 42-52);
and wherein the packet is routed through the Fibre Channel fabric (Col. 4 lines 42-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Druta with the Fibre Channel fabric of Olson because it provides faster network speeds.
Regarding Claim 15, Druta teaches the device of claim 11.
Druta does not explicitly teach wherein the device is configured for communication via a Fibre Channel protocol.
Olson teaches wherein the device is configured for communication via a Fibre Channel protocol (Col. 4 lines 42-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Druta with the Fibre Channel fabric of Olson because it provides faster network speeds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 9, 14, and 19, the closest prior art of record Druta (“Druta”, US 20240214300) in view of Freeman (“Freeman”, US 6252917) in further view of Olson et al (“Olson”, US 7804862) and in even further view of Franzen et al (US 20200177494) does not teach a method comprising: identifying, from a header provided with a packet received at a first device, a sustainability policy associated with the packet; selecting a path to a next device along a route to a destination endpoint based on a one or more sustainability metrics associated with the path and the sustainability policy; and transmitting the packet using the path to the next device; further comprising: updating an energy demand counter in the header of the packet prior to transmitting the packet; further comprising: determining, based on a final value of the energy demand counter, a cost savings derived from routing the packet using the sustainability policy; and storing the cost savings in association with the sustainability policy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Franzen et al (US 20200177494), Abstract - A method implemented by a network device for selection of a routing table in a Policy Based Routing (PBR) system is described. The method may include receiving a packet from a first network domain; generating a firewall mark for the packet, wherein the firewall mark includes a network domain indication and a packet classification indication; determining a match between the network domain indication of the packet and a selector of a matched rule in a set of rules; and upon determining the match between the network domain indication of the packet and the selector of the matched rule, inputting the firewall mark to a function of the matched rule to identify a routing table for the packet.
Banerjea et al (US 20140269393), Abstract - A wireless network device includes a physical layer module configured to send and receive packets wirelessly. The wireless network device includes a mesh routing module configured to receive a first packet from a second wireless network device via the physical layer module. The first packet includes a metric and a source address. The mesh routing module is further configured to determine a cumulative metric based on (i) the metric from the first packet and (ii) a link metric. The mesh routing module is further configured to transmit a second packet to a third wireless network device via the physical layer module. The second packet includes the cumulative metric. The mesh routing module is further configured to determine the link metric based on (i) a state of charge of a power supply of the wireless network device and (ii) a transmission parameter of the second packet.
OLOFSSON (US 20180063033), Abstract - A device may receive a network address associated with a destination device. The network address may identify the destination device based on layer 3 of the Open Systems Interconnection model. The device may store next-hop information identifying a next hop associated with the destination device based on the network address. The device may generate an auto-discovery route including a layer 3 label. The layer 3 label may permit network traffic to be routed to the destination device based on multiprotocol label switching (MPLS), and may identify a lookup table based on which to obtain the next-hop information. The device may provide the auto-discovery route including the layer 3 label.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444