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 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Regarding 112 rejection, applicant argued that The specification provides explicit guidance regarding the temporal scope of "real time" operations in the context of the claimed distributed network.
Applicant argued that “ As disclosed in the specification, "A change in state that should be synchronize should trigger synchronization sequence that guaranties that all routing decisions within less than a predefined time period (for example 0.5, 1, 2, 3 seconds and the like) on any part of the network are using the new state." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [00111]. This disclosure establishes that "real time" operations occur within a timeframe of seconds or less, providing the necessary standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of performance”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The above excerpt is not about what real-time refers to. It is about an intended outcome of a change in state that trigger synchronization sequence that would result in routing decisions within less than a predefined time period .
1/ The disclosure does not provide scale as to determine what real-time refers to. The above excerpt does not refer real-time to be predefined time period (for example 0.5, 1, 2, 3 seconds and the like). None of the above excerpt or anywhere in the disclosure explicitly indicates that real time corresponds to predefined time period (for example 0.5, 1, 2, 3 seconds and the like) or any time scale as to what real-time refers to.
2/ Even, assuming that applicant`s argument above is persuasive where real time to corresponds to predefined time period (for example 0.5, 1, 2, 3 seconds and the like) as indicated in the disclosure, when determining the scope for real-time of the claims, that disclosure in and of itself clearly does not point out specific value for real-time that would particularly point out and distinctly claim a scale to the relative term “real-time”. Rather, it provides options of Realtime to be either 0.5 s, 1s, 2s, or 3s. Therefore, assuming the above argument is persuasive, the scope of the claims is indeterminate as to what value of the above values of 0.5 s, 1s, 2s, or 3s the claimed real-time corresponds to with respect to determining the scope of the claims, unless the claim limitation specifically claim that real-time is one of the above values.
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant argued that the combination does not disclose: “wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to support without an assistance of an external SDN manager that is located outside the distributed network”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
1/Applicant argues that the claim is about decentralized SDN controller where each physical node comprising the SDN controller. However, this characterization is not part of the claim. the Applicant`s argument relies on arguing “distributed serverless managements” indicated only in [0106], to mean where all the physical nodes comprise the SDN controller. without that term “distributed serverless managements” not being in the claim language, arguing the claim limitations using it would be reading the specification in to the claim. Only terms captured in the claim are given patentable weight.
2/Albeit for the above short phrase, indicated only in [0106], it does not indicate what serverless management entails to or how it differs from network that corresponds to fig. 9 of the instant application. In light of the overall context of the disclosure, serverless management corresponds to the system of fig. 9 of the disclosure. If applicant is intending to claim fully distributed SDN where each nodes comprises the SDN controller instead of centralized controller, examiner suggests explicitly indicating in the claims where SDN controller is distributed in each of the physical nodes provided there is a support for the disclosure. Fully distributed SDN controller in nodes is known in the art (see fig. 2 and [0071] of US pg. no. 20230344766).
3/In light of the disclosure, the network as claimed is indicated in fig. 9 of the instant application. The physical nodes corresponds to node 21 and all physical nodes are connected to the distributed layer 2 switch 30. fig. 10 discloses structural components of distributed SDN switch 30. All the SDN controller function is comprised in the distributed SDN switch 30. Fig. 8 discloses the structural components of physical node. None of the physical nodes comprises a capability of SDN controller. As indicated in fig. 9, no external SDN manager that is located outside the distributed network indicated in fig. 9 is used. Similarly Slyne in fig. 2 discloses the network where switch 13, switch 12, switch 11, and switch 10 that corresponds to the physical nodes connected in daisy chain where all are connected to OpenFlow controller (SDN controller) that corresponds to SDN switch 30. No other external SDN manager that is located outside the distributed network of fig. 2 is used.
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.
Claim 3-5,7-11, 15 and 45 are 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.
The term “real time” in claims 3-5,7-11,and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “real time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For instance, claim 4 states “exchange, in real time, …information”. However, it is not clear what corresponds to real time in context with the invention. Is it instant and continuously done exchange of information without any time latency or otherwise. If it is the first one, the specification need to indicate how real time exchange of information is done with reference to time scale. If it is not the first one, then the specification need to particularly indicate what time gap is considered real time.
Regarding claim 45, it recites the limitation “orthogonal paths”. However, it is not clear as to what orthogonal paths refers to in order to ascertain limits and bounds to the claim to clearly point out and distinctly indicate scope of the claim.
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, 17, 38 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton (-----US pg. no. 20130272202), further in view of Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511).
Regarding claim 1. Stapleton discloses a distributed network ([0028] and fig. 1 discloses reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System (distributed network) that provides a high degree of flexibility to manage, control, re-configure, enhance and facilitate the radio resource efficiency, usage and overall performance of the distributed wireless network. FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of the Distributed Antenna System 100 in accordance with the present invention. The system employs a Digital Access Unit functionality 105 (hereinafter "DAU"). The DAU 105 serves as an interface between associated base stations (BTS) 110A-B and a plurality of digital remote units (DRU) 125A-n) comprising:
multiple links (fig. 1 discloses multiple links in the distributed network of the figure connecting the DRUs); and
multiple physical nodes that in communication with each other via the multiple links, to form multiple redundant paths, wherein at least some of the redundant paths form a daisy chain (fig. 1 discloses plurality of DRUs (physical -nodes) in communication with each other via the multiple links; [0041] and FIG. 3, discloses an alternative embodiment of the present invention wherein a single DAU controls a plurality of rings, each comprising a plurality of daisy-chained DRU's, can be better understood. In FIG. 3, two daisy-chained rings, indicated at 300 and 305, are shown although the number of rings could be greater and is determined mainly as a matter of design preference up to limits imposed by network performance);
wherein the multiple physical nodes comprise output ports configured to interface with external hosts ([0049] discloses the signals from DRU 125A and DRU 125C are combined based on the active signal combining algorithm, and are fed to the base station connected to the uplink output port of DAU 105 (physical node)); and
But, Stapleton does not explicitly disclose: wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to supports software defined networking (SDN).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Slyne discloses wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to support software defined networking (SDN) (fig. 2 discloses daisy chained physical nodes such as: core switch 13, Metro core switch 12, OLT switch 11, and ONU switch 10 interacting with OpenFlow controller (SDN controller); [0059-0060] discloses the reference architecture can be created using four daisy-chained OpenFlow switches, acting as ONU, 10 & 11, OLT, Metro-Core 12 and Core Switches 13 in FIG. 2. The switches are based on Pronto 3780 with 48 SFP+ ports each running at 10 Gbps…[0060] The system and method of the invention presented brings structure to the layer 2 network, and extends the layer 2 network from information provider out to the customers. This makes the network appropriate for analysis and control by SDN devices in the path of the traffic flows. That corresponds to multiple physical nodes are configured to supports software defined networking (SDN)).
wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to support without an assistance of an external SDN manager that is located outside the distributed network (the network as claimed is indicated in fig. 9. The physical nodes corresponds to 21 and all physical nodes are connected to the distributed layer 2 switch 30. fig. 10 discloses structural components of distributed SDN switch 30. All the SDN controller function is comprised in the distributed SDN switch 30. Fig. 8 discloses the structural components of physical node and. None of the physical nodes comprises a capability of SDN controller. No external SDN manager that is located outside the distributed network indicated in fig. 9 is used. Similarly Slyne in fig. 2 discloses the network where core switch 13, switch 12, switch 11, and switch 10 that corresponds to the physical nodes connected in daisy chain where all are connected to OpenFlow controller (SDN controller) that corresponds to SDN switch 30. No other external SDN manager that is located outside the distributed network indicated in fig. 2 is used
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 Stapleton with Slyne. The modification would allow separated control plane and data plane where the centralized management of the control plane enables the system and method of the invention savings in the complexity over traditional routing and switching devices as well as the Operation and Maintenance resources to manage them. Regarding claim 2.The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
Slyne discloses, wherein at least some link portions of the least some of the multiple links are underground link portions (fig. 1 discloses ONU1, OLT1 and OSFWs connected by optical link that corresponds to link in the ground. ONU1 and OLT1 are not in the ground. They are at the central office or customer site. The OSFWs connected by optical inks are underground).
Regarding claim 38. The combination discloses a method for operating a distributed network, the method comprises:
All other limitations of claim 38 are similar with the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected on the analysis of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 41. The combination discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable medium that store instructions for operating a distributed network, by:
All other limitations of claim 41 are similar with the limitations of claim 1 above. Claim 1 is rejected on the analysis of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Zuniga (US pg. no. 20060039298).
Regarding claim 3. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, status information within each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zuniga discloses wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, status information within each other ([0042] each node takes care of its own state machine and attachments, informing other nodes via signaling whenever the state is changed… In the distributed approach, a change in state is broadcast to the entire network; [0050] The attachment device 608 communicates changes in state of the node 600 and whether the node 600 is going to change networks to all of the nodes in the attachment list 604. The transmitter/receiver 610 send the changes from the attachment device 608 via the antenna 612. The transmitter/receiver 610 also receives information regarding the state of nodes in the attachment list 604 which is constantly updated).
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 Zungia. The modification would allow exchanging updated information on the state of nodes in the network for efficient networking.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Mitchell (US pg. no. 20180062815).
Regarding claim 4. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, physical node health information within each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, physical node health information within each other ([0042] As shown in FIG. 4A, in some examples, the first electronic device 105a can send the health signal 405 to the other electronic devices 105b-f. The health signal 405 can be a message, code, authentication key, token, or other communication to inform the other electronic devices 105b-f that the first electronic device 105a is operating properly. In other words, at the most basic level, if the first electronic device 105a is able to send the health signal 405, then the first electronic device 105a minimally has at least an operable network adapter, processor, and usable memory. Each electro3nic device 105 can periodically send the health signal 405 to all of the electronic devices 105 in the system 300).
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 Mitchell. The modification would allow exchanging updated health information of nodes in the network for efficient networking.
Regarding claim 5. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein a physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to send, in real time, physical node health information regarding the physical node and regarding neighbors of the physical node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses wherein a physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to send, in real time, physical node health information regarding the physical node and regarding neighbors of the physical node ([0042] As shown in FIG. 4A, in some examples, the first electronic device 105a can send the health signal 405 to the other electronic devices 105b-f. The health signal 405 can be a message, code, authentication key, token, or other communication to inform the other electronic devices 105b-f that the first electronic device 105a is operating properly. In other words, at the most basic level, if the first electronic device 105a is able to send the health signal 405, then the first electronic device 105a minimally has at least an operable network adapter, processor, and usable memory. Each electro3nic device 105 can periodically send the health signal 405 to all of the electronic devices 105 in the system 300).
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 Mitchell. The modification would allow exchanging updated information on the state of nodes in the network for efficient networking.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), further in view of and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Kamen (US pat. No. 11197075).
Regarding claim 6. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: comprising initializing a new physical node with a health score indicative of an untested physical node, and providing the physical node a valid health score only after the physical node is active for at least a predefined period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kamen discloses comprising initializing a new physical node with a health score indicative of an untested physical node, and providing the physical node a valid health score only after the physical node is active for at least a predefined period (col 53, lines 24-41 discloses the device status is set as inactive (new physical node with a health score indicative of an untested physical node). Computing system 40 may continue to add new end device for monitoring in a similar manner. Health management module may collect one or more end device measurements and defines the device health score (providing the physical node a valid health score . The collection period of health measurements corresponds to predetermined period)…the device health is used for advance device status control).
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 Kamen. The modification would allow monitoring network health by monitoring the health of each node comprised in the network. The modification would allow an efficient network system for enabling efficient communication.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Zhu (CN-101136863-B).
Regarding claim 7. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose, wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, a packet distribution policy with each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu discloses wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, a packet distribution policy with each other (page 6, lines 38-59 discloses broadcast the newly updated routing information (distribution policy) to all nodes that can be directly connected. In particular, when the name of the destination node to be broadcast is already included in the routing information, it is not broadcast to the destination node. Step 203: After receiving the routing information, the node adds its own name in front of the routing information to become the starting point of routing, and adds the updated routing information to its routing table. Step 204: The node that updates the routing information broadcasts the updated routing information to other directly connected nodes, and repeats steps 202 and 203, and all the nodes on the direct network are updated. Further, step 205 may also be included. The sending node sends the routing information in its routing table to the receiving node that has just established the connection).
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 Zhou. The modification would allow exchanging update information among nodes to allow UpToDate and current information in a distributed network for efficient networking. The sending node sends the routing information in its routing table one by one to the receiving node.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Yuzo (JP2001034592A).
claim 8. The distributed network according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, configuration information within each other
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yuzo discloses wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, configuration information within each other ([0060] discloses the updated network configuration information is broadcast to all nodes other than the transmission source node via the configuration information distribution unit 11. The time gap between each updating and exchanging of configuration information corresponds to real time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of eth invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Yuzo. The modification would allow exchanging updated configuration information to enable UpToDate configuration with current configuration used in a network for avoiding using outdated configuration that would cause network failure as a result avoiding network faults.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Hu (CN112118118A).
Regarding claim 9. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, a first type of physical node metadata and to send an indication about a change in a value of a second type of physical node metadata.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses wherein the multiple physical nodes are configured to exchange, in real time, a first type of physical node metadata and to send an indication about a change in a value of a second type of physical node metadata (page 7. Lines 52-57 discloses also implement the update of network node information (metadata) through the following steps: obtain network node information of the business process network from the business process engine, where the network node information includes: node information that has been added to all clients in the business process network; according to the node information of the newly added client, update the network node information (updated metadata) of the business process network to obtain the updated network node information; broadcast the updated network node information Clients to all nodes in the business process network).
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 Hu. The modification would allow synchronizing updates in a distributed network for an updated and synchronized network system for efficient communication.
Regarding claim 10. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein each physical node of the multiple physical node is configured to reconstruct, in real time, a status of all physical nodes of the multiple physical nodes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses wherein each physical node of the multiple physical node is configured to reconstruct, in real time, a status of all physical nodes of the multiple physical nodes (page 5, lines 21-23 discloses Node A pushes the state data {node,key,value,version} (status of physical node) to node B. Node B selects those data with a higher version number than node A and pushes it to node A according to the state data. Node A updates local data; Node A then Local data newer than Node B is pushed to Node B, and Node B updates local data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Hu. The modification would allow synchronizing node status in distributed network for an efficient networking.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Lin (US pg. no. 20210168903).
Regarding claim 11. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define, in real time, two different paths from the physical node to a target.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin discloses wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define, in real time, two different paths from the physical node to a target ([0008] discloses network comprising a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes comprising: a head node; and a source node, wherein the plurality of nodes are configured to generate a set of paths to the head node);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of eth invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Lin. The modification would allow establishing alternate routes to destination to use the alternate route at the time the other route fails.
Regarding claim 12. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 11.
Lin further discloses, wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define the two different paths from the physical node to the target, based on a status, generated by the physical node, of all physical nodes of the multiple physical nodes ([0022] An advantage of the multipath generation method above is that an optimal set of the shortest paths between the source node and the destination node are created using local node data (status generated). An additional advantage is that, if a failed node is discovered during upstream and downstream data delivery, the multipath set-up method guarantees that alternative paths would be available which do not contain the failed node due to the disjoint nature of some of the alternative paths; [0008] discloses adaptive failure recovery method comprising the steps of: collecting, at the discovery node, relevant data, the relevant data comprising: (e) a hop-distance between the failed node and the source node; (f) a count of estimated extra hops required to deliver the data packet using a hop-distance recovery method; (g) a count of estimated extra hops required to deliver the data packet using a multipath recovery method; and (h) a latency time for the hop-distance recovery method; comparing, at the discovery node, latencies of the hop-distance recovery method and the multipath recovery method calculated from the relevant data; and depending on the comparison, selecting the hop-distance recovery method or the multipath recovery method).
Regarding claim 13. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 11.
Lin further discloses, wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define the two different paths based on a health of physical nodes of the multiple physical nodes ([0022] discloses if a failed node(health of physical node) is discovered during upstream and downstream data delivery, the multipath set-up method guarantees that alternative paths would be available which do not contain the failed node due to the disjoint nature of some of the alternative paths).
Regarding claim 16. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 11.
Lin further discloses, wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define the two different paths so that the different paths do not share a point of failure ([0022] discloses advantage of the multipath generation method above is that an optimal set of the shortest paths between the source node and the destination node are created using local node data. An additional advantage is that, if a failed node is discovered during upstream and downstream data delivery, the multipath set-up method guarantees that alternative paths would be available which do not contain the failed node due to the disjoint nature of some of the alternative paths).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Thankappan (US pg. no. 20150095445).
Regarding claim 14. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 11.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define the two different paths based on load associated with the multiple physical nodes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Thankappan discloses wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define the two different paths based on load associated with the multiple physical nodes ([0019] discloses if the load at the switch on the current path is assessed at 20 million packets per second (MPPS), while the threshold value is 13 MPPS, MPM 114 (via SLA 115) may determine that the load information (load associated with physical node) for the switch exceeds the threshold value, and therefore determine that alternate paths should be investigated. In particular embodiments, the threshold value for switch load may be based on some other metrics, such as, for example, a maximum ratio of load at a switch along a current path to the average load at any other switches along any alternate paths between the host computer and the storage disk array. If the evaluation indicates that a ratio of load at the switch along a current path (e.g., 20 MPPS at switch 120A) to the average load at two other switches (of three total) along one or more alternate paths between the host computer and the storage disk array (e.g., average load of 5 MPPS as between the two other switches) exceeds the maximum ratio (e.g., ratio of 20:5 far exceeds a maximum ratio of 4:3), MPM 114 may determine that the load information for the switch exceeds the threshold value, and therefore determine that alternate paths should be investigated).
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 Thankappan. The modification would allow node load based route determination to avoid using overloaded nodes for efficient network communication.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stapleton (US pg. no. 20130272202), and Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Flamini (US pat. No. 10700958 B2).
Regarding claim 15. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 11.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define, in real time, two different paths from the physical node to a target for traffic of a first class and is configured to define in real time a single path from the physical node to the target for traffic of a second class.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Flamini discloses wherein each physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to define, in real time, two different paths from the physical node to a target for traffic of a first class and is configured to define in real time a single path from the physical node to the target for traffic of a second class (claim 1 discloses generating a network path list comprising a list of all possible paths for the plural network devices; tailoring the network path list by selecting a first set of paths from the list of all possible paths for a first class of network traffic in accordance with a network model and business rules, selecting a second set of paths from the list of all possible paths for a second class of network traffic, and selecting a third set of paths from the list of all possible paths for a third class of network traffic; generating path configuration information based on first set of paths, second set of paths, and third set of paths… wherein network traffic from the second class of network traffic and network traffic from the third class of network traffic is never transmitted over the first set of paths. wherein network traffic from the second class of network traffic and network traffic from the third class of network traffic is never transmitted over the first set of paths);
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 Flamini. The modification would allow traffic class based service differentiation to ensure network service that matches the type of traffic. The modification would allow segregated network service for efficient network resource utilization.
Claim(s) 1-2, 17, 38 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton (-----US pg. no. 20130272202), further in view of Slyne (US pg. no. 20160006511), further in view of Kune (US pg. no. 20230344766).
Regarding claim 44. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein a physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to perform virtual network distributed configurator calculations that comprise calculating routing, wherein the physical node has a full network visibility regardless an identity of the physical node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kune discloses wherein a physical node of the multiple physical nodes is configured to perform virtual network distributed configurator calculations that comprise calculating routing, wherein the physical node has a full network visibility regardless an identity of the physical node([0080] In state 350, the DSDN controller in the DSDN source (physical node) node can analyze the quality of the communication paths created between the DSDN source node and DSDN destination node. In some embodiments, the quality of communication paths can be determined based on one or more factors of path cost, bandwidth, latency, link aggregation, or redundancy, where the DSDN node DSDN controller monitors the factors in real-time. [0081] In state 360, the DSDN controller in the DSDN source node can select an optimal communication path between the DSDN source node and the DSDN destination (having full network visibility) node. In some embodiments, the optimal communication path can include a plurality of communication paths; fig. 2 and [0071] discloses distributed SDN where Each DSDN node (222, 224, 226, 228, and 230) that corresponds to physical nodes can include a DSDN controller (SDN controller). The DSDN controller can manage the control plane of each DSDN node network architecture, where the control and data planes are logically separated. [0094] the DSDN controller (460) is implemented into each DSDN node. In each DSDN node, the DSDN controller (460) may manage the application layer (430), the transport layer (440), and the data/network layer (450). In some embodiments, the DSDN controller (460) uses the configuration rules stored in a control layer. In some embodiments, the DSDN controller (460) can include a routing decision engine. In these embodiments, using the configuration rules, the DSDN controller (460) can determine a communication path between two DSDN nodes using the routing decision engine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Kune. The modification would allow preventing single point of failure of centralized SDN controller. The modification would allow highly available SDN system
Regarding claim 45. The combination discloses distributed network according to claim 1.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a subset of connections between physical nodes of the multiple physical nodes create a ring of at least three physical nodes with at least three wires, and wherein the physical node, when performing the virtual network distributed configurator calculations is configured to calculate at least two orthogonal paths from any talking node to any listener node through the network using shortening connections to reduce latency.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kune discloses wherein a subset of connections between physical nodes of the multiple physical nodes create a ring of at least three physical nodes with at least three wires (fug. 2 discloses a ring among DSDN node 1 DSDN node 4 and DSDN node 3), and wherein the physical node, when performing the virtual network distributed configurator calculations is configured to calculate at least two orthogonal paths from any talking node to any listener node through the network using shortening connections to reduce latency ( [0073]Each DSDN node can automatically determine an optimized communication path. The DSDN controller in the DSDN node may optimally route data across the DSDN to a DSDN destination node based on one or more factors of path cost, bandwidth, latency, link aggregation, redundancy; fig. 2 and [0071] discloses distributed SDN where Each DSDN node (222, 224, 226, 228, and 230) that corresponds to physical nodes can include a DSDN controller (SDN controller). The DSDN controller can manage the control plane of each DSDN node network architecture, where the control and data planes are logically separated. [0094] the DSDN controller (460) is implemented into each DSDN node. In each DSDN node, the DSDN controller (460) may manage the application layer (430), the transport layer (440), and the data/network layer (450). In some embodiments, the DSDN controller (460) uses the configuration rules stored in a control layer. In some embodiments, the DSDN controller (460) can include a routing decision engine. In these embodiments, using the configuration rules, the DSDN controller (460) can determine a communication path between two DSDN nodes using the routing decision engine; [0080] In state 350, the DSDN controller in the DSDN source node can analyze the quality of the communication paths created between the DSDN source node and DSDN destination node. In some embodiments, the quality of communication paths can be determined based on one or more factors of path cost, bandwidth, latency, link aggregation, or redundancy, where the DSDN node DSDN controller monitors the factors in real-time. [0081] In state 360, the DSDN controller in the DSDN source node can select an optimal communication path between the DSDN source node and the DSDN destination node. In some embodiments, the optimal communication path can include a plurality of communication paths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Kune. The modification would allow effective path calculation in SDN network system.
Conclusion
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