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 .
Claim Objections
As to claim 4, the phrase “the monitoring working information about each network link under the network topology structure” should be “the monitoring working information about each of network links under the network topology structure” to match the language used in parent claim 1.
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 2, 3, 11, 12, and 17 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.
As to claim 2, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of broadcasting target information “through the first device” and broadcasting the target information “through a second device” as claimed. This language could indicate the broadcast is sent from the first device and sent from the second device (i.e., the broadcasts originate at these devices), or it could indicate the first device and the second device act as intermediaries through which broadcasts are passed.
Furthermore, the examiner is unclear if “the first device of the data center” is referring back to “a first device” or not. The phrase “the first device of the data center” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of “any of the switches, the hosts, and the servers”, as only “a switch, a host, and a server” are referenced in parent claim 1. The phrase “the switches, the hosts, and the servers” lacks proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 3, the claim is rejected due to its dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 2 discussed above.
As to claim 11, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of determining whether the pre-transmitted data traffic packets from the target sending end to the target receiving end under the network topology structure need to be split according to a pre-set data packet splitting strategy, as this step was already performed in parent claim 10.
The examiner believes the applicant may have intended for claim 11 to depend upon claim 9, as previously the claim depended on claims 1 to 9, and not claim 10.
Similarly, the splitting limitation of the claim contains some duplicative elements in comparison to the splitting limitation of parent claim 10.
As to claim 12, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of “the target sending end” and “the target receiving end” in the claim. The phrases “the target sending ends” and “the target receiving ends” appear in parent claim 6. Therefore, the examiner is unclear if the phrases in claim 12 are meant to be “the target sending ends” and the “target receiving ends”, or if the phrases are meant to be directed to a single target sending end of the target sending ends and a single target receiving end of the target receiving ends.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected due to its dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 12 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gahm et al. (hereafter referred to as Gahm), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0346897 A1.
As to claim 1, Gahm discloses a network traffic load balancing method for a data center (¶ [0012]), being applied to the data center containing a switch, a host, and a server (¶¶ [0024] and [0040]), comprising:
collecting connection information between the switch, the host, and the server (¶¶ [0023] and [0026]), and constructing a network topology structure of the data center according to the connection information (¶ [0058]);
monitoring working information about each of network links under the network topology structure, and correspondingly determining a congestion condition of each of the network links according to the working information about each of the network links (¶¶ [0026] and [0058]); and
allocating pre-transmitted data traffic packets to each of the network links according to the congestion condition to balance data traffic on each of the network links (¶¶ [0012] and [0028]).
As to claim 19, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as those given for claim 1 above. Furthermore, Gahm discloses a network traffic load balancing apparatus for a data center, comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions (¶ [0047]).
As to claim 20, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as those given for claim 19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 13-16, and 21 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.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the invention as claimed. This is not a statement that any one limitation in a vacuum is allowable subject matter, but rather that the combination of the claim limitations as a whole are not obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is 571-270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
7/24/26
Prosecution Insights