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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 directed to a “computer readable storage medium" which in applicant’s specification being described as an example instead of a clear definition (see application specification paragraph 00111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer storage readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signal per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer storage readable media.
Therefore claim 17 and its dependent claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter (see MPEP 2106.01). In order to overcome the rejection, examiner suggests the applicant to add the "non-transitory" as the computer readable storage medium into the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,3,9,11,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi (us 10,917,378) in view of Rajagopalan et al (us 2020/0028902) (hereinafter Rajag).
As regarding claim 1, Majhi discloses when determining that a target node in a to-be-processed chassis (see Majhi col.7, lines 14-19, network devices is physical devices within a chassis) is used as a management node of the to-be-processed chassis, obtaining a virtual address and assigning the virtual address to the target node (see Majhi col.1, lines 55-65, col.2, lines 53-57, assign virtual address device upon the device assuming the master status (i.e. device is used as management device) also see col.4, lines 17-22, virtual address is assigned as the master status assumes by the device); notifying a subnet corresponding to the to-be-processed chassis with the virtual address, the virtual address being used to inform that the target node is the management node (see Majhi col.1, lines 55-65, col.2, lines 15-23, after the device assumes the master status and with the assigned virtual address, transmits a control message, which identify the virtual address to other devices to notify the network device has the ownership of the master status).
Majhi is silent in regard to the concept of performing communication with a target programmable module of the to-be-processed chassis through the target node and management on data of the to-be-processed chassis.
Rajag teaches the concept of performing communication with a target programmable module of the to-be-processed chassis through the target node and management on data of the to-be-processed chassis (see Rajag 0016-0019, one of the BMC become master to control the chassis component, the communication between the programmable device and the BMC over bus).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rajag to Majhi because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi with Rajag’s teaching for the purpose of allowing data communication between devices within a chassis.
As regarding claim 3, Majhi-Rajag discloses when determining that the virtual address is available, assigning the virtual address to the target node (see Majhi col.4, lines 17-22, virtual address is assigned as the master status assumes by the device, it is obvious that the address is available before being assigned to the device). The same motivation was utilized
As regarding claims 9,11,17, the limitations of claims 9,11,17 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1,3 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 2,7,10,15,18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi-Rajag as applied to claims 1,9,17 above and further in view of Lin et al (us 2020/0305301) (hereinafter Lin).
As regarding claim 2, Majhi-Rajag discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, Majhi-Rajag is silent in regard to the concept of when determining that an inquiry command issued by the target node is not obtained within a second target time length through the target programmable module, restarting the target node through the target programmable module, the inquiry command being used to inquire about the current management node of the to-be-processed chassis; and when restarting the target node fails, determining that the target node is abnormal.
Lin teaches the concept of when determining that an inquiry command issued by the target node is not obtained within a second target time length through the target programmable module, restarting the target node through the target programmable module (see Lin 0063-0064, 0081-0083, if BMC lost connection with the management node, restart the BMC), the inquiry command being used to inquire about the current management node of the to-be-processed chassis and when restarting the target node fails, determining that the target node is abnormal (see Lin 0044-0045, 0063-0064, 0081-0083, the restarting the BMC, the connection is lost with the management node, determine that the BMC is abnormal).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lin to Majhi-Rajag because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi-Rajag with Lin’s teaching for the purpose of strengthen the monitoring ability and allowing the management for the racks can be highly automated (see Lin 0005).
As regarding claim 7, Majhi-Rajag-Lin discloses when determining that an inquiry command issued by the target node is obtained within a second target time length through the target programmable module, determining that the target node is not abnormal, and instructing the target node to perform a management operation on data of the to-be-processed chassis (Lin 0063-0065, determine that the BMC has normal network connection…management system send control command to BMC (see Lin 0066)). The same motivation was utilized in claim 2 applied equally well to claim 7.
As regarding claims 10,15,18, the limitations of claims 10,15,18 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 2,7 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
As regarding claim 19, Majhi-Rajag-Lin discloses assigning the virtual address include, when determining that the virtual address is available, assigning the virtual address to the target node (see Majhi col.4, lines 17-22, virtual address is assigned as the master status assumes by the device, it is obvious that the address is available before being assigned to the device).
Claims 4,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi-Rajag as applied to claims 1,9 above and further in view of Rajamanickam et al (us 2014/0044134) (hereinafter Rajam).
As regarding claim 4, Majhi-Rajag discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, Majhi-Rajag further discloses carrying the virtual address in an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) signaling (see Majhi col.5, lines 52-54, transmit an address resolution message from master node to other node/s), before communicating with the target programmable module of the to-be-processed chassis through the target node, reconfiguring a web server of the to-be-processed chassis to cause the web server to monitor the virtual address (see Majhi col.7, lines 23-32, host device providing/communicating traffic with devices in the chassis).
Majhi-Rajag is silent in regard to the concept of transmitting the ARP signaling to the subnet corresponding to the to-be-processed chassis and instructing other nodes in the to-be-processed chassis except the target node to update ARP cache information of the other nodes.
Rajam teaches the concept of transmitting the ARP signaling to the subnet corresponding to the to-be-processed chassis and instructing other nodes in the to-be-processed chassis except the target node to update ARP cache information of the other nodes (see Rajam 0016, send ARP message with address to other devices so that the other devices update their cache).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rajam to Majhi-Rajag because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi-Rajag with Rajam’s teaching for the purpose of eliminating address conflict across devices (see Rajam 0002).
As regarding claim 12 the limitations of claim 12 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 4 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi-Rajag as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Liu et al (us 2010/0014416) (hereinafter Liu).
As regarding claim 5, Majhi-Rajag discloses the invention as claims in claim 3 above, Majhi-Rajag is silent in regard to the concept of when determining that the virtual address is not available, performing communication with the virtual address multiple times; and when the virtual address is not able to be communicated after a first target time length, determining that the virtual address is occupied, and generating a notification used to inform a user that the virtual address is occupied.
Liu discloses the concept of when determining that the virtual address is not available, performing communication with the virtual address multiple times; and when the virtual address is not able to be communicated after a first target time length, determining that the virtual address is occupied and generating a notification used to inform a user that the virtual address is occupied (see Liu 0030, verify and reverify the network address is unavailable where the device associated with the address cannot be reached or in response sending a ping to the address and no response is received, this process is repeated periodic time interval, it is obvious to inform a user that the address is not available so further action can be taken).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Liu to Majhi-Rajag because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi-Rajag with Liu’s teaching for the purpose of eliminating address conflict across devices.
Claims 6,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi-Rajag as applied to claims 1,9 above and further in view of Mudric (us 2017/0279765).
As regarding claim 6 Majhi-Rajag discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, Majhi-Rajag is silent in regard to the concept of when determining that the virtual address is abnormal through the target programmable module, instructing the target node to release the virtual address through the target programmable module.
Mudric teaches the concept of when determining that the virtual address is abnormal through the target programmable module, instructing the target node to release the virtual address through the target programmable module (see Mudric 0045, when the address is no longer valid, release the address).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mudric to Majhi-Rajag because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi-Rajag with Mudric’s teaching for the purpose of resolving the connectivity issues and provide better troubleshooting the conflict between addresses.
As regarding claim 14 the limitations of claim 14 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 6 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi-Rajag-Rajam as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Liu et al (us 2010/0014416) (hereinafter Liu).
As regarding claim 13, Majhi-Rajag-Rajam discloses the invention as claims in claim 12 above, Majhi-Rajag-Rajam is silent in regard to the concept of when determining that the virtual address is not available, performing communication with the virtual address multiple times; and when the virtual address is not able to be communicated after a first target time length, determining that the virtual address is occupied, and generating a notification used to inform a user that the virtual address is occupied.
Liu discloses the concept of when determining that the virtual address is not available, performing communication with the virtual address multiple times; and when the virtual address is not able to be communicated after a first target time length, determining that the virtual address is occupied and generating a notification used to inform a user that the virtual address is occupied (see Liu 0030, verify and reverify the network address is unavailable where the device associated with the address cannot be reached or in response sending a ping to the address and no response is received, this process is repeated periodic time interval, it is obvious to inform a user that the address is not available so further action can be taken).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Liu to Majhi-Rajag-Rajam because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi-Rajag-Rajam with Liu’s teaching for the purpose of eliminating address conflict across devices.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi-Rajag-Lin as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Rajamanickam et al (us 2014/0044134) (hereinafter Rajam).
As regarding claim 20, Majhi-Rajag-Lin discloses the invention as claims in claim 19 above, Majhi-Rajag-Lin further discloses carrying the virtual address in an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) signaling (see Majhi col.5, lines 52-54, transmit an address resolution message from master node to other node/s), and before communicating with the target programmable module of the to-be-processed chassis through the target node, reconfiguring a web server of the to-be-processed chassis to cause the web server to monitor the virtual address (see Majhi col.7, lines 23-32, host device providing/communicating traffic with devices in the chassis).
Majhi-Rajag-Lin is silent in regard to the concept of transmitting the ARP signaling to the subnet corresponding to the to-be-processed chassis and instructing other nodes in the to-be-processed chassis except the target node to update ARP cache information of the other nodes.
Rajam teaches the concept of transmitting the ARP signaling to the subnet corresponding to the to-be-processed chassis and instructing other nodes in the to-be-processed chassis except the target node to update ARP cache information of the other nodes (see Rajam 0016, send ARP message with address to other devices, the other devices update their cache).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rajam to Majhi-Rajag-Lin because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Majhi-Rajag-Lin with Rajam’s teaching for the purpose of eliminating address conflict across devices (see Rajam 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8,16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459