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 .
This office action is in response to RCE filed 02/02/2026.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-20 are pending.
Claims 10, 13 and 16 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Telephonic Interview
The examiner made several attempts to contact applicant’s representative to discuss examiners proposed amendments to put the claims in condition for allowance and left several voicemails but did not receive a response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the response filed, applicant also argues in substance that:
At best understood, the cited sections of Yamada describe a network environment in which two switching devices 1a and 1b exchange OAM frames (i.e. CCMs) with each other via a single interface (rather than via a LAG) (Remarks, pg. 8).
In response to argument a, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yamada teaches “…providing a management end point (MEP) of an OAM function so as to correspond to EACH communication port belong to link aggregation, failure detection within a device, which relates to link states, and failure detection between devices based on an OAM frame”, See col. 2 L24-30, fig. 5: transmission and reception units 91b, 91c each with its own MEP functionality and participating in LAG via port B and C, col. 4 L7-29.
Yamada also teaches, for example, since the ports B and C have been linked down, the transmission and reception unit may deem that the received OAM frame have no transfer destination and discard the OAM frame and since the response frame becomes unreceived, a failure is detected, col. 5 L3-27.
Additionally, Yamada teaches that, in the switching device 1, for example, when one of the transmission and reception units 11b and 11c receives no OAM frame owing to a failure, the control may be performed based on an OAM frame received by the other of the transmission and reception units 11b and 11c. Therefore, between MEPs, normal monitoring or control based on the OAM frame may be performed. While the two ports B and C are integrated by the link aggregation LA, the number of integrated ports maybe arbitrary, See col. 5 L55-67.
The MEP that received OAM frame then performs the loopback test based on fig. 3 by sending the OAM response through its port, see col. 3 L37-51, while still participating in LAG.
As such, although single interface is shown between switching device 9b and 9a, switching device 9a also comprises transmission and reception units (91b, 91c) whose ports or links are configured in LAG, and wherein each transmission and reception unit is configured with MEP functionality. The MEP functionality performs connectivity tests such as described in fig. 2-3.
For at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recites the limitation “the one or more OAM functionalities”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Due to lack of proper antecedent basis for this limitation, it is unclear what OAM functionalities the limitation is referring to thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Claims 2-9, 11-12 and 15 and 17 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARIYA (US 2016/0050103 A1) in view of Yamada (US 8,929,200 B2) and further in view of Gilbert et al. (hereinafter Gilbert, US 6,901,531 B2).
As per claim 1, KARIYA discloses A method performed by a network device that includes a plurality of Operations, Administration, and Management processors (OAMPs) [Fig. 9-10, Fig. 12, fig. 4: Each Line card of the Switch includes Frame Processing unit comprising ICCM Processing unit and OAM Processing unit], the method comprising:
Maintenance End Point (MEP) transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through one of the interfaces, the MEP transmitter functionality comprising generating and sending Continuity Check Messages (CCMs) to the one or more remote network devices via one of the interface of the network device (fig. 2, fig. 7: MEP transmitters transmitting CCMs between network switches, [0039-0040]], fig. 5 and [0050-0054]: switching devices are provided both internal IMEPs and MEPs for monitoring both internal continuity and external continuity).
configuring the plurality of OAMPs to use Continuity Check (CC) protocol for monitoring their connectivity to each other [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 39-40, 50-51, 89]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured], wherein the configuring causes each OAMP to:
transmit Continuity Check Messages (CCMs) on a periodic basis to other OAMPs in the plurality of OAMPs [0051-0052, 0101-0102]: IMEPd1 on line card implementing ICCM monitoring by transmitting and receiving internal continuity ICCM frames at regular intervals];
monitor for receipt of CCMs from the other OAMPs [0051-0053, 0101-0102]: the internal monitoring points IMEPd1-d(n) monitors the continuity based on receipt of ICCM frames]; and
upon failing to receive a CCM from a first OAMP in the plurality of OAMPs within a time window, raise a signal indicating loss of continuity to the first OAMP [0010, 0052-0053], [0101-0102]: monitoring and detecting LOC state based on failure to receive the ICCM frames within predetermined period and issuing RDI message].
However, KARIYA does not teach the process of selecting, from among a plurality of OAMPs of the network device that are associated with different member interfaces of a link aggregation group (LAG), a first OAMP as being sole executor of Maintenance End Point (MEP) transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through the LAG and handling the loss of the continuity by failing over the one or more OAM functionalities from the first OAMP to a second OAMP, the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the one or more OAM functionalities.
Yamada, from the same field of endeavor teaches the process wherein plurality of MEPs of the network device is associated with different member interfaces of a link aggregation group (LAG) (col. 2 L24-30, col. 4 L7-67, fig. 1: LA, fig. 5: LA: Link aggregated), wherein a Maintenance End Point (MEP) is configured that communicates via the CC protocol with one or more remote MEPs residing on one or more remote network devices [col. 3 L1-36: Link aggregation is applied to switch 1a and MEP is set in the switching device 1a. MEP implements the CC protocol, fig. 1, fig. 5, fig. 7: switch 1a and 1c with MEPs, switch 9a and 9b implementing MEPs, Switching device 1c transmits OAM frame from the MEP of the self-device to the MEP of other switching device 1a].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA in view of Yamada in order to configure a link aggregation group from different interfaces of a network device and implement MEP transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through the LAG.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled failure detection within a device that implements link aggregation to improve the throughput of the whole network [Yamada: col. 2 L24-67].
However, KARIYA-Yamada does not teach the process of selecting, from among a plurality of OAMPs of the network device, a first OAMP as being sole executor of Maintenance End Point (MEP) transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through the LAG and handling the loss of the continuity by failing over the one or more OAM functionalities from the first OAMP to a second OAMP, the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the one or more OAM functionalities.
Gilbert, from the same field of endeavor [Automatic System Control Failover] teaches a process of selecting, from among the plurality of controllers or processors [0009: plurality of system controllers including primary controller], a first primary controller or processor as being sole executor of one or more Operations, Administration and Management (OAMs) functionalities [[0009]: primary system controller is configured to configure other processors, memories and i/o devices, [0024]: primary system controller manages overall operation and secondary system controller is backup for managing the system, [0059]. Note: A primary node/module/OAMP/controller implicitly is a sole executor of any functions it is configured to execute or perform. The presence of primary controller implies the controller was selected at a primary controller from plurality of controllers] and
handling the loss of the continuity by failing over the one or more OAM functionalities from the first OAMP to a second OAMP, the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the one or more OAM functionalities [fig. 8, [0024]: Secondary controller takes over from the primary system controller its functions when primary controller fails, [0058]: secondary system controller taking over operations of the primary system controller in an event primary system controller fails and becomes new primary controller, [0059]. Note: A primary node/module/OAMP/controller implicitly is a sole executor of any functions it is configured to execute or perform. The presence of primary controller implies the controller was selected at a primary controller from plurality of controllers].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA-Yamada in view of Gilbert in order to select primary OAMP and secondary OAMPs and fail over the primary OAMP functions to the secondary OAMP in an event primary OAMP fails [i.e. failover].
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because failing over of the failed controller or OAMP ensures that monitoring and/or control of the system are continuous due to the fail-over of the system controller functions from the primary system controller to the secondary system controller, thus presenting a highly-available and resilient system. The primary system controller may then be replaced with the new system controller [Gilbert: [0059]].
As per claim 2, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1 wherein said each OAMP is configured to perform the transmitting of the CCMs, the monitoring for receipt of the CCMs, and the raising of the signal in hardware [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 0039-0040, 0050-0051, 0089-0090, [0101-0102]]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured as frame processing units executed by the LC processor. The ICCM frame unit runs the CC protocol and raises LOC state when continuity is absent].
As per claim 3, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the configuring is performed by software running on a central processing unit (CPU) of the network device [0089-0090], fig. 4, fig. 9-10, fig. 12: ICCM processing units implementing CC protocol are provided/set or configured by the management unit/card/cpu of the relay device. Note: CPU alone cannot function without executing instructions of the management software/program].
As per claim 4, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 3 wherein said each OAMP is configured to perform the transmitting of the CCMs, the monitoring for receipt of the CCMs, and the raising of the signal without intervention by the CPU [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 39-40, 50-51, 56, 89]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured by the switch/relay or switch/relay management card. Once the monitoring points are provided or set, the ICCM unit functions and raises RDI signal or LOC state without any instruction from the management card or the ICCM unit is operating independently of the main management CPU].
As per claim 5, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising maintaining an address table including interface identifiers at each line card of the relay device [KARIYA: [0086], fig. 10: address table which is maintained locally by each line card, i.e. local database of the OAMP].
However, KARIYA does not disclose the process wherein configuring comprises for each said OAMP: programming a unique Maintenance End Point (MEP) identifier into a local MEP database of the OAMP.
Yamada, from the same field of endeavor teaches setting of an MEP [col. 2 L24-31: MEP is provided so as to correspond to each communication port, col. 6 L35-48, col. 8 L29-40] and programming a unique MEP identifier into a local database [col. 7 L8-56: MAC address learning table with destination and source addresses, col. 9L28-37: MAC is assigned to each MEP. Each source and destination addresses are programmed in the MAC table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA in view of Yamada (hereinafter KARIYA-Yamada) in order to program unique MEC identifier into a local MEP database of the OAMP.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled OAM frame processing and/or to keep track of the MEP states [Yamada: col. 9 L28-55].
As per claim 6, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising configuring or programming a plurality of line cards comprising OAMPs of the relay device into a remote MEP database of the OAMPs [KARIYA: [0122-0123, fig. 16: Fault determination table for each line card keep track of continuity presence or continuity absence in each line card comprising OAMP].
However, KARIYA does not explicitly teach or use MEP identifiers of the OAMPs into a remote database.
Yamada, from the same field of endeavor teaches setting of an MEP [col. 2 L24-31: MEP is provided so as to correspond to each communication port, col. 6 L35-48, col. 8 L29-40] and setting or assigning a unique a mac identifier/address to MEPs [col. 9L28-37: MAC is assigned to each MEP].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA-Gilbert in view of Yamada in order to program or set unique MEC identifier into a remote MEP database of the OAMP to identify the MEC endpoints.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled tracking OAMPs states using MAC identifiers of the OAMPs and further assist in pinpointing fault locations on the plurality of line cards with a higher reliability [KARIYA: 0123].
As per claim 7, KARIYA-Yamada-Gilbert discloses the method of claim 6, wherein programming the MEP identifiers of the other OAMPs into the remote MEP database comprises:
initializing a state variable associated with each MEP identifier programmed into the remote MEP database with a value indicating that an OAMP identified by the MEP identifier is reachable (KARIYA: [0122-0123, fig. 16: Fault determination table for each LC keep track of continuity presence or absence (variable-value) in each line card comprising OAMP] and Yamada: [col. 9L28-37: MAC is assigned to each MEP]. The same rationale as in claim 6 applies.
As per claim 8, KARIYA-Yamada-Gilbert discloses the method of claim 7, wherein upon detecting a loss of continuity to the OAMP identified by the MEP identifier, the state variable is changed to another value indicating the loss of continuity (KARIYA: [0120-0123, fig. 16: Fault determination table for each LC keep track of continuity presence or absence (variable-value) in each line card comprising OAMP by acquiring determination results of presence of absence of internal continuity and whenever the state changes from continues monitoring at periodic intervals].
As per claim 9, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the configuring comprises, for said each OAMP:
Setting or programming CCM transmission interval in the frame processing unit, the CCM transmission interval indicating a time interval at which the OAMP should generate and send CCMs to other OAMPs [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 39-40, 50-51, 89]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured which transmits ICCM frames at regular intervals. Note: Since IMEPd1 and IMEPd2..d(n) sends ICCM frames at regular intervals, it is implicit that the regular intervals were set or programmed in the frame processing unit]; and
Setting or programming CCM timeout interval in the frame processing unit, the CCM timeout interval an amount of time the OAMP should wait to receive CCMs from each OAMP in the plurality of OAMPs before concluding that continuity has been lost to said each OAMP [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 39-40, 50-51, 89, 106]: not receiving ICCM messages within a predetermined period [timeout] and declaring absence of continuity between IMEPd(1)…(n), [0043]: 3.5x used as predetermined period]. Note: KARIYA also discloses setting local address table (fig. 10) and remote table (fig. 16).
However, KARIYA does not teach programming a CCM transmission interval into a local MEP database of OAMP and programming a CCM timeout interval into a remote MEP database of the OAMP.
But, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA (given the teachings in KARIYA and using ordinary skill in the art) in order to program CCM transmission interval into a local MEP database of the OAMP and program a CCM timeout interval into a remote MEP database of the OAMP since ARIYA teaches address tables or local database, remote database, periodic intervals and predetermined period as timeout. Note: The modification is mere a design choice how the interval and timeouts parameters are configured in the system.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to enable fault detection and/or monitoring presence or absence of continuity between management endpoint units [KARIYA: [0039-0043]: IEEE802.1ag is a standard for monitoring the continuity between devices using MEPs, CCM messages sent at periodic intervals and using timeouts or predetermined period to detect loss of continuity state].
As per claim 11, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the loss of continuity is handled by software running on a CPU of the network device [[0089-0090], [0102-0103], fig. 4, fig. 9-10, fig. 12]. (Note: The term “handled” is a broad term and may simply mean receiving, processing, detecting, storing, etc.).
As per claim 12, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the loss of continuity is handled in hardware by one or more of the plurality of OAMPs [[0089-0090, [0102-0104], fig. 4, fig. 9-10, fig. 12]: the ICCM functioning unit handles the LOC state. Note: The term “handled” is a broad term and may simply mean receiving, processing, detecting, storing, etc.].
As per claim 14 [Network Device with CPU, memory and OAMPs], it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Furthermore, KARIYA teaches the network device with cpu, memory and OAMPs [fig. 4, fig. 9-10, fig. 12: Relay/Switch with plurality of line cards wherein each line card comprises frame processing unit with ICCM functioning unit implementing CC protocol and management card/unit. The management card operates comprises a main CPU of the relay device].
As per claim 15, KARIYA teaches the network device of claim 14, wherein the network device further comprises a plurality of packet processors, and wherein each OAMP in the plurality of OAMPs is implemented in a corresponding packet processor in the plurality of packet processors [Fig. 4, fig. 9-10, fig. 12, [0080-0081]: Relay/Switch Device with plurality of line cards for processing packets, each line card comprises frame processing unit including ICCM processing unit that implements CC protocol].
As per claim 17, KARIYA discloses the network device of claim 14 as set forth above, further comprising MEP transmitter for generating and sending the CCMs to the one or more remote MEPs [KARIYA: fig. 2, fig. 7: MEP transmitters transmitting CCMs between network switches, [0039-0040]], fig. 5 and [0050-0054]: switching devices are provided both internal IMEPs and MEPs for monitoring both internal continuity and external continuity].
However, KARIYA does not teach the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the MEP transmitter functionality with respect to the one or more remote network devices.
Gilbert, from the same of endeavor, explicitly teaches failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as the sole executor of the primary OAMP function for monitoring and managing the computer system [fig. 8, [0024]: Secondary controller takes over from the primary system controller its functions when primary controller fails, [0058]: secondary system controller taking over operations of the primary system controller in an event primary system controller fails and becomes new primary controller, [0059]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA in view of Gilbert in order to select the secondary OAMP as the sole MEP transmitter for generating and sending the CCMs to the one or more remote MEPs by failing over the primary OAMP functions to the secondary OAMP in an event primary OAMP fails [i.e. failover].
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because failing over of the failed controller or OAMP would have ensured that monitoring of computer systems is continuous due to the fail-over of the system controller functions from the primary system controller to the secondary system controller [Gilbert: [0059]].
As per claim 18, KARIYA discloses A method performed by a network device that includes a plurality of Operations, Administration, and Management processors (OAMPs) [fig. 4, 9-10, 12], the method comprising:
Maintenance End Point (MEP) transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through one of the interfaces, the MEP transmitter functionality comprising generating and sending Continuity Check Messages (CCMs) to the one or more remote network devices via one of the interface of the network device (fig. 2, fig. 7: MEP transmitters transmitting CCMs between network switches, [0039-0040]], fig. 5 and [0050-0054]: switching devices are provided both internal IMEPs and MEPs for monitoring both internal continuity and external continuity);
configuring the plurality of OAMPs to use an OAM fault detection protocol for monitoring their connectivity to each other [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 39-40, 50-51, 89]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured], wherein the configuring causes each OAMP to:
determine, via the OAMP fault detection protocol, when continuity has been lost to a first OAMP in the plurality of OAMPs; and in response, raise a signal indicating loss of continuity to the first OAMP [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 0039-0040, 0050-0051, 0089, 0102-103]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured which monitors internal relay device continuity using the CC protocol and issues LOC state when continuity is absent and issuing RDI message].
However, KARIYA does not teach the process of selecting, from among a plurality of OAMPs of the network device that are associated with different member interfaces of a link aggregation group (LAG), a first OAMP as being sole executor of Maintenance End Point (MEP) transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through the LAG and handling the loss of the continuity by failing over the MEP transmitter functionality from the first OAMP to a second OAMP, the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the one or more MEP transmitter functionality.
Yamada, from the same field of endeavor teaches the process wherein OAMP of the network device is associated with different member interfaces of a link aggregation group (LAG) (col. 2 L59, fig. 1: LA, fig. 5: LA: Link aggregated), wherein a Maintenance End Point (MEP) is configured on the LAG that communicates via the CC protocol with one or more remote MEPs residing on one or more remote network devices [col. 3 L1-36: Link aggregation is applied to switch 1a and MEP is set in the switching device 1a. MEP implements the CC protocol, fig. 1, fig. 5, fig. 7: switch 1a and 1c with MEPs, switch 9a and 9b implementing MEPs, Switching device 1c transmits OAM frame from the MEP of the self-device to the MEP of other switching device 1a].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA in view of Yamada in order to configure a link aggregation group from different interfaces of a network device and implement MEP transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through the LAG.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled failure detection within a device that implements link aggregation to improve the throughput of the whole network [Yamada: col. 2 L24-67].
However, KARIYA-Yamada does not teach the process of selecting, from among a plurality of OAMPs of the network device, a first OAMP as being sole executor of Maintenance End Point (MEP) transmitter functionality with respect to one or more remote network devices that are reachable through the LAG and handling the loss of the continuity by failing over the MEP transmitter functionality from the first OAMP to a second OAMP, the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the MEP transmitter functionalities.
Gilbert, from the same field of endeavor [Automatic System Control Failover] teaches a process of selecting, from among the plurality of controllers or processors [0009: plurality of system controllers including primary controller], a first primary controller or processor as being sole executor of one or more Operations, Administration and Management (OAMs) functionalities [[0009]: primary system controller is configured to configure other processors, memories and i/o devices, [0024]: primary system controller manages overall operation and secondary system controller is backup for managing the system, [0059]. Note: A primary node/module/OAMP/controller implicitly is a sole executor of any functions it is configured to execute or perform. The presence of primary controller implies the controller was selected at a primary controller from plurality of controllers] and
handling the loss of the continuity by failing over the OAM functionality from the first OAMP to a second OAMP, the failing over comprising selecting the second OAMP as being the sole executor of the OAM functionality [fig. 8, [0024]: Secondary controller takes over from the primary system controller its functions when primary controller fails, [0058]: secondary system controller taking over operations of the primary system controller in an event primary system controller fails and becomes new primary controller, [0059]. Note: A primary node/module/OAMP/controller implicitly is a sole executor of any functions it is configured to execute or perform. The presence of primary controller implies the controller was selected at a primary controller from plurality of controllers].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify KARIYA-Yamada in view of Gilbert in order to select primary OAMP and secondary OAMPs and fail over the primary OAMP functions to the secondary OAMP in an event primary OAMP fails [i.e. failover].
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because failing over of the failed controller or OAMP ensures that monitoring and/or control of the system are continuous due to the fail-over of the system controller functions from the primary system controller to the secondary system controller, thus presenting a highly-available and resilient system. The primary system controller may then be replaced with the new system controller [Gilbert: [0059]].
As per claim 19, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the OAM fault detection protocol is Continuity Check (CC) protocol or Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 0039-0040, 0050-0051, 0089, 0102-103]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured which monitors internal relay device continuity using the CC protocol].
As per claim 20, KARIYA discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the plurality of OAMPs are designed to execute the OAM fault detection protocol in hardware, without intervention by a central processing unit (CPU) of the network device [fig. 4, fig. 10, fig. 12, [0010, 39-40, 50-51, 56, 89]: internal monitoring points implementing the CC protocol are provided/set or configured by the switch/relay or switch/relay management card. Once the monitoring points are provided or set, the ICCM unit functions and raises RDI signal or LOC state without any instruction from the management card or the ICCM unit is operating independently of the main management CPU of the relay device].
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SINHA et al., US 9,270,564 B2: System and Method for Congestion Notification in an Ethernet OAM Network, fig. 8 and col. 8 L9-020: One or more ports are configured into a LAG according to LAG protocol AND MEP 112 is assigned to a LAG that includes plurality of ports. This shows LAG with MEP functionality.
Khosravi, US 7,197,664 B2: Stateless Redundancy in a network device – Teaches Failover of the primary control element to secondary control elements in the event of failure of the primary control element.
Sawaguchi, US 9,282,015 B2: Network Relay Device [Teaches claims 5-8 functions]
Hofner US 2003/0097610 A1: Functional Fail-Over Method – Teaches failover system where in case of a failure of an element/process or node within the system, only that element is shutdown, and its failed-over over to backup element which becomes active element.
Dorai et al., US 10,243,821 B2: OAM Mechanism for EVPN Active-Active Services
Baheri et al., US 11,483,195 B2: Automated Maintenance End Point Creation
Wexler et al. US 10,326,680 B2: Generic Operations, Administration and Maintenance Function
Kariya US 9,525,590 B2: Relay System and Relay Device
Lee et al., US 2016/0344630 A1: Packet Transmission for processing operations, administration and maintenance OAM packet and protection switching message
QIN US 2016/0006631 A1: Method and apparatus for link check passive optical network
Yasuda et al., US 2015/0312090 A1: Relay System and Switching device: Teaches MCLAGID table with status of ports
OKAZAKI US 2009/0310483 A1: Network Device and Link Switching Method [Teaches Active and Backup links and Failover]
Cirkovic et al., US 9,036,466 B2: mproving Network communication using ethernet switching protection
Fitzgerald et al., US 2009/0282291 A1: Internal Maintenance Association End Point MEP for sharing state information.
Conclusion
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 KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 6am-2pm 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, Amy Cohen Johnson can be reached at 571-272-2238. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453 09/09/2026
Prosecution Insights