DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 6 – 8, 10 – 13 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 16 – 20 are added new.
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 14 and 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0222928 to Johnsen et al. (hereinafter Johnsen) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0160099 to Rozenboim (hereinafter Rozenboim) and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0246431 to Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnsen discloses (¶6) providing network switch functionality in a network environment, which further includes:
a source node; an intermediate node and a destination node (Johnsen discloses (¶127 and Fig. 11) the source node 1101 is on the Subnet A, the intermediate node 1102, and the destination node 1103 is on the Subnet B)
wherein the source node is communicatively connected to the intermediate node (fig. 11), and is configured to:
generate a first packet and send the first packet to the intermediate node (Johnsen discloses (¶127) source node 1101 send a packet (e.g. an IB packet 1110) to a destination node 1103 via an intermediate node 1102)
wherein the first packet carries an identifier (ID) of the source node and a forwarding path of the first packet (Johnsen discloses (¶55 - ¶57) the network layer defining the route and protocol for the packets using Local Identifier (LID) to route traffic within a subnet, and Global Unique Identifier (GUID) to forward the packets across subnets. Link Level switching forwards packets from a device specified by a source LID (SLID) within a Local Route Header (LRH) of the packet to a device specified by a destination LID (DLID) within the Local Route Header LRH)
wherein the intermediate node is communicatively connected to the source node and the destination node (Johnsen discloses (¶127) source node 1101 send a packet to a destination node 1103 via an intermediate node 1102), and is configured to:
receive the first packet using a first port of the intermediate node (Johnsen discloses (¶130 - ¶132) the IB packet 1110 can be routed via linear forwarding table LFT lookup to the intermediate node 1102 based on the DLID 1122 as resolved by the SA 1120)
decode the first packet to obtain the forwarding path of the first packet (Johnsen discloses (¶133 - ¶134 and Fig. 11) shows the DGID portion 1121 of the exemplary packet 1100 including subnet prefix forwarding portion 1131 including an Inter-Subnet-Route-Number (ISRN) 1141 that allows the same linear forwarding tables (LFTs) to be used by fabric switches configured for making both intra-subnet forwarding decisions as well as for making inter-subnet forwarding decisions)
and wherein the destination node is communicatively connected to the intermediate node, and is configured to: receive the first packet (Johnsen discloses (¶127) source node 1101 send a packet (e.g. an IB packet 1110) to a destination node 1103 via an intermediate node 1102)
Johnsen does not explicitly disclose generate a first mapping relationship based on an identifier of the first port and the ID of the source node, and receive a response packet of the first packet of the first packet from the second port, and determine a sending port of the response packet of the first packet based on the first mapping relationship, generate the response packet of the first packet based on the first packet and send the response packet to the intermediate node. However, in an analogous art, Rozenboim teaches:
generate a first mapping relationship based on an identifier of the first port and the ID of the source node (Rozenboim teaches (¶66) when a packet from a specific host arrives at bridge, the forwarding table is updated with the host’s address, port and the time of its first arrival)
and receive a response packet of the first packet from the second port (Rozenboim teaches at step 6 (¶76) the H21 will generate an ARP response with via a unicast addressed to H09)
and determine a sending port of the response packet of the first packet based on the first mapping relationship (Rozenboim teaches (¶76 and ¶81) routing packets is based on the forwarding table contents, and every time a packet arrives in the path, the table entry age field is updated, so as long as the bidirectional stream is active, the topology learnt will persist. Here, the response packet from H21 will first be send to B-10)
generate the response packet of the first packet based on the first packet (Rozenboim teaches at step 6 (¶76) the H21 will generate an ARP response packet for H09) and send the response packet to the intermediate node (Rozenboim teaches (¶76 and ¶81) routing packets is based on the forwarding table contents. Here, the response packet from H21 will first be send to B-10, then to B-11, then to H10, then to B-2, and then finally B-2 sends the response to H09)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Johnsen with Rozenboim for the purpose of implementing (¶3) preventing switch loops in computer networks, such as Layer-2 networks.
Johnsen in view of Rozenboim does not explicitly disclose forward the first packet to the destination node through a second port of the intermediate node, wherein the second port is determined based on the forwarding path. However, in an analogous art, Lin teaches:
forward the first packet to the destination node through a second port of the intermediate node, wherein the second port is determined based on the forwarding path (Lin teaches (¶76) link detection packet carries the routing table of the mid-level SE 2 and the link state table from the mid-level SE 2 to the first level SE 1)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin with Johnsen and Rozenboim for the purpose of implementing (Lin, ¶2) method and system for link state detection.
Claim 2, Johnsen, Rozenboim and Lin disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the forwarding path of first packet comprises a second mapping relationship, and the second mapping relationship indicates to the intermediate node to forward the first packet from the second port (Rozenboim teaches (¶92) receiving second packet/message and determining the mapping relationship (i.e. whether the packet/message is received at a different port) and determining whether the packet/message is a duplicate) and forwarding/routing packets (¶76, ¶81) based on the forwarding table.)
wherein the intermediate node is further configured to:
send identifiers of at least two ports of the intermediate node to the source node using the first port, wherein the identifiers of the at least two ports comprise the identifier of the first port and an identifier of the second port, and the second port is any port of the intermediate node other than the first port (Rozenboim teaches (¶71) the packet comprising an identifier of the source and (¶92) determines that the received second broadcast message is a duplicate and a result of a loop i.e., that the duplicate message is received on a different port) and wherein the source node generates the second mapping relationship based on the identifier of the second port and the first packet (Rozenboim teaches (¶66) when a packet from a specific host (instance) arrives at a bridge, the forwarding table (i.e. mapping relationship) is updated with the host's address, port and the time of its first arrival.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Johnsen, Rozenboim and Lin disclose all the elements of claim 2. Further they disclose:
wherein the response packet further comprises identifiers of all ports of the destination node (Johnsen discloses (¶121) using Local ID based routing/forwarding within each subnet i.e. the 16-bit Destination Local Identifier (DLID) in the Local Route Header (LRH) of the IB Packet is looked up when it is being routed at the switch port and, the output port is quickly found by directly indexing the LFT in hardware using the DLID value in the LRH of the IB packet) and the identifiers of all the ports of the destination node are used by the source node to generate a routing table (Johnsen discloses (¶44) the routing tables can be updated whenever the topology changes, in order to ensure connectivity and optimal performance)
wherein the intermediate node is further configured to:
forward the first packet (Johnsen discloses (¶167) forwarding mode applies to switch ports that perform the packet forwarding decisions) from the second port to a third port based on the second mapping relationship (Johnsen discloses (¶169, Figs. 11-13) LFT lookup in a third forwarding domain when forwarding packets from the Core Fabric to the Target Subnet is performed using the Target LID 1143) wherein the third port is a port of the destination node (Johnsen discloses (¶170-¶173 sending packets to a gateway port implies that the addressing mode for the packet is changed because the sending is one of: sending source-leaf to core-fabric, sending core-fabric to destination-leaf, or sending source-leaf to destination-leaf)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Johnsen, Rozenboim and Lin disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the intermediate node is further configured to receive a second packet from the first port, and the second packet carries the routing table (Lin teaches (¶76) link detection packet carries the routing table of the mid-level SE 2 and the link state table from the mid-level SE 2 to the first level SE 1).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 6, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 7, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 8, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 9, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 11, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 12, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 16, Johnsen, Rozenboim and Lin disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the second port is an egress port indicated by the forwarding path (Johnsen discloses (¶138) egress port in the same switch node)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 17, Johnsen, Rozenboim and Lin disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein a header of the first packet comprises the forwarding path.
(Johnsen discloses teaches (Fig. 14 and 16, and ¶161) an IB packet may include multiple headers (i.e. LRH, GRH) that contain information about how the packet should be forwarded from source to destination.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 16. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 16.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 17. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 17.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 16. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 16.
Claims 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0222928 to Johnsen, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0160099 to Rozenboim, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0246431 to Lin, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0144092 to Zheng et al. (hereinafter Zheng).
Claim 5, Johnsen and Rozenboim disclose all the elements of claim 1. Johnsen and Rozenboim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first packet further carries a preset routing table of the destination node of the first packet. However, in an analogous art, Lin teaches:
wherein the first packet further carries a (Lin teaches (¶76) link detection packet carries the routing table of the mid-level SE 2 and the link state table from the mid-level SE 2 to the first level SE 1)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 4.
Johnsen in view of Rozenboim in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose
preset routing table (Zheng teaches (¶7) preset forwarding table is a forwarding table pre-configured in the first network device. When forwarding the packet, the first network device forwards the packet based on information such as a route or a port indicated by the preset forwarding table)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zheng with Johnsen in view of Rozenboim in view of Lin, for the purpose of implementing packet processing method and a network device so as to effectively resolve a problem that a quantity of concurrent packet processing policies is limited in a network device due to scarce hardware resources of a packet forwarding chip (Zheng, ¶6).
Claim 10, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 03/10/2026 with respect to the Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Hence, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0246431 to Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin).
In response to the applicant’s argument, (Pg. 10), “… Rozenboim does not disclose receiving a packet that carries a forwarding path. In contrast, Rozenboim's address resolution protocol (ARP) packet (e.g., packet 580) is a broadcast packet and does not carry any forwarding path information indicating a next hop. As shown above, Rozenboim's broadcast packet is forwarded or distributed by a receiving bridge to all ports/bridges in the VLAN of the receiving bridge. In other words, Rozenboim discloses that a bridge simply replicates and broadcasts the received broadcast packet out of every port except the receiving port (emphasis added). As such, Rozenboim fails to teach "forward[ing] the first packet to the destination node through a second port of the intermediate node, wherein the second port is determined based on the forwarding path" and "receiv[ing] a response packet of the first packet from the second port,” the Examiner notes that for the newly added limitation, forward the first packet to the destination node through a second port of the intermediate node, wherein the second port is determined based on the forwarding path, the office uses the reference US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0246431 to Lin et al., which clearly teaches (¶76) link detection packet carries the routing table of the mid-level SE 2 and the link state table from the mid-level SE 2 to the first level SE 1. In this case (¶51) when a link is faulty, the first level SE can know and select another mid-level SE in time to forward packets according to a distribution table, and this avoids a technical defect of blocking a mid-level SE due to a faulty lower-level link in the multi-level switching system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HASSAN ABDUR-RAHMAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6574. The examiner can normally be reached TEAPP - (M-Sa) 9/30/17-9/30/18, 6am-10pm IFP.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights