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 .
Priority
The present application does not claim for foreign priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has not been submitted.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 9, and 16, it is suggested not to use an italicized font for “team” in line 1 and use a regular font “team” for consistency.
In claims 3, 11, and 18, it is suggested to replace “MAC” (in line 1 of claim 3, in line 2 of claim 11, and in line 2 of claim 18) with “media access control (MAC)” for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
In claims 10 and 15, it is suggested to replace “VLAN” (in line 2 of claim 10 and in line 3 of claim 15) with “virtual local area network (VLAN)” for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 9, 11, 16, and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites a limitation “the maintenance interface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend to read “the management interface” for correction of typographical error and for clarity.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites a limitation “the virtual maintenance interface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend to read “the virtual management interface” for correction of typographical error and for clarity.
Regarding claims 11 and 18:
Claims 11 and 18 recites a limitation “the maintenance interface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend to read “the virtual management interface” for correction of typographical error and for clarity.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 recites a limitation “the maintenance interface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend to read “the virtual management interface” for correction of typographical error and for clarity.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert (US 6,718,383 B1, Hebert) in view of Burns (US 2003/0140124 A1, hereinafter Burns) further in view of Hebbar et al. (US 2005/0066216 A1, hereinafter Hebbar).
Regarding claim 1:
Hebert teaches a method (see, Hebert: Fig. 5) in a network device (see, Hebert: Fig. 4, Host 402), the method comprising:
defining first and second logical interfaces, respectively (see, Hebert: Fig. 4, interface hme0 and hme1; Col. 6, lines 17-27), on a first physical port and a second physical port (see, Hebert: Fig. 4, NIC 420 and NIC 422; Col. 6, lines 17-27) of the network device, wherein the first and second physical ports are connected to a gateway node (see, Hebert: Fig. 4, Host 404) (see, Hebert: Col. 9, line 9 – 14, “On startup of firewall …, failover mechanism … defines all interfaces.”);
defining a management interface (see, Hebert: Fig. 4, Failover Mechanism 410A; Col. 6, lines 21-23, “failover mechanism 410 includes software running at the application layer of the communications protocol.”) by combining the first and second logical interfaces (see, Hebert: Col. 12, lines 16-17, “two Gigabit Ethernet ports may be combined to form a trunk. In the event one of the two Gigabit Ethernet connections fails, a failover may be performed to a redundant Gigabit Ethernet trunk.”), wherein traffic that ingresses on either the first or second physical port is provided to the management interface (see, Hebert: Fig. 4, wherein the primary connection 450 including NIC 420 and the secondary connection 452 including NIC 422 is provided to the Failover Mechanism 410A; and Col. 6, lines 46-59, “failover mechanism 410A is configured to monitor primary connection 450 by utilizing a heartbeat 460. Failover mechanism 410A monitors this heartbeat 460 by periodically "pinging" host 404 by sending packets over NIC 420 to host 404 via connection 430. Host 404 replies to these packets received from host 402 by sending reply packets over NIC 440 to host 402 via connection 430. If host 402 receives a reply from host 404, failover mechanism 410A is configured to detect primary connection 450 is operational. However, if failover mechanism 410A detects a failure in heartbeat 460 (e.g., no reply packets received from host 404), failover mechanism 410A is configured to perform a failover to secondary connection 452.”, wherein defining Failover Mechanism is inherent on startup as discussed above.);
running a management process (e.g., monitoring primary connection), wherein the management process receives traffic from the gateway node via the management interface, wherein traffic from the gateway node initially flows along a first data path (see, Hebert: Fig. 3, connection 330A; Fig. 4, primary connection 450), ingresses on the first physical port (e.g., NIC 420), is provided to the management interface via the first logical interface (e.g., hme0), and received by the management process (see, Hebert: Col. 4, lines 42-44, “primary connection 330A serves to transmit communications between database server 202 and application server 204.”; Col. 6, lines 46-55, “Failover mechanism 410A monitors this heartbeat 460 by periodically "pinging" host 404 by sending packets over NIC 420 to host 404 via connection 430. Host 404 replies to these packets received from host 402 by sending reply packets over NIC 440 to host 402 via connection 430. If host 402 receives a reply from host 404, failover mechanism 410A is configured to detect primary connection 450 is operational.”; Col. 10, lines 51-52, “In ordinary operation, primary connection … handles all network traffic between host … and LANs …”); and
periodically transmitting probe packets to the gateway node on the first data path and monitoring for missed response packets to detect occurrence of a failure along the first data path (see, Hebert: Col. 5, 66 – Col. 6, 7, “one node on a network may use the ping command to periodically send requests to another node over a particular network interface. As long as a corresponding reply is received, it may be assumed that the connection is working. If no reply is received, the connection may no longer be operational and corrective action may be required. In addition to the ping utility, other similar types of request/reply communication utilities may be used to test network connections as well.”).
Hebert does not explicitly teach wherein in response to detecting occurrence of a failure along the first data path, advertising that the management interface is reachable on a second data path connected to the second physical port, wherein the gateway node transmits subsequent traffic to the second physical port in response to the advertising, wherein the subsequent traffic ingresses on the second physical port, is provided to the management interface via the second logical interface, and received by the management process
In the same field of endeavor, Burns teaches wherein in response to detecting occurrence of a failure along the first data path, advertising that the management interface is reachable on a second data path connected to the second physical port (see, Burns: Fig. 4, Step 405; para. [0037], “Next (step 405), ATCP stack 114 in slow-path causes port aggregation driver 112 to have NID 103 send out a "gratuitous Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request" to switch 105. This ARP request serves to advertise to switch 105 that the MAC address (MAC address A) that previously identified the failed Port 1 is now to be associated with Port 2. This gratuitous ARP request is sent because some intelligent switches, upon detecting the same MAC address on two physical ports, may function to isolate both ports. An isolated port is a failed port to the switch, and all communications from the isolated port would be ignored. NID 103 therefore sends the gratuitous ARP request out via Port 2 to cause such a sophisticated switch to reconfigure itself to know that MAC A is now associated with Port 2.”),
wherein the gateway node transmits subsequent traffic to the second physical port in response to the advertising, wherein the subsequent traffic ingresses on the second physical port, is provided to the management interface via the second logical interface, and received by the management process (see, Burns: Fig. 4, Step 407; para. [0039], “Next (step 407), "fast-path" operation is resumed for TCP connection #1 such that Port 2 both receives and transmits packets for TCP connection #1. Host 102 passes control of TCP connection #1 back to NID 103 in a two-phase handout process. In the first phase (called "HANDOUT1"), host 102 instructs NID 103 to store and not forward to NID 103 subsequent packets for the specified TCP connection. In this case, the specified TCP connection is TCP connection #1 to be handed to the NID 103.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hebert in combination of the teachings of Burns in order to advertise that MAC address the previous identified that failed Port 1 is now to be associated with Port 2 (see, Burns: para. [0037] [0041]).
Hebert in view of Burns does not explicitly teach wherein a first physical port and a second physical port are on a supervisor card of the network device.
In the same field of endeavor, Hebbar teaches wherein a first physical port and a second physical port are on a supervisor card of the network device (see, Hebbar: Fig. 3, Chassis 1, Supervisor1, Port1 (P1) and Port2 (P2)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hebert in view of Burns in combination of the teachings of Hebbar in order to provide management point to the user (see, Hebbar: para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Burns further teaches wherein using a team utility provided by an operating system (OS) running on the network device to combine the first and second logical interfaces to define the maintenance interface (see, Burns: para. [0033], “FIG. 3 is a diagram of part of this list of PAG_ADAPT structures. This list is maintained by port aggregation driver 112 in the form of a linked list. Each "team" comprises a number (one or more) of team "members". The team members are ports. In the exemplary method of FIG. 4, team #1 (see FIG. 3) represents the team associated with connection #1. Initially Port 1 is used as the receive port for TCP connection #1. Port 1 is therefore initially designated by a pointer to be the "primary" port. Upon the failure of Port 1, port aggregation driver 112 chooses another of the ports of the team (Port 2 in this example) to be the new "primary" team member. Port aggregation driver 112 therefore moves the pointer to indicate that Port 2 is the new primary team member. The moving of the pointer is indicated in FIG. 3 with the dashed arrow.”; para. [0062], “The port aggregation driver structures and techniques set forth above are not only usable with and/or in a Microsoft Windows operating system, but rather are also usable with and/in other operating systems including Unix, Linux, Novel, and Apple operating systems.”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hebert and Burns wherein a failure along the first communication path includes one or more of a failure in the first physical port, a failure in a physical link between the first physical port and the gateway node, and a failure in the gateway node (see, Hebert: Col. 2, lines 33-34, “detecting a failure of the first network connection”; Col. 2, lines 44-45, “If a failure of the first network interface is detected”; Col. 14, lines 8, “upon failure of an interface connection”; Burns: para. [0031], “a failure occurs on Port 1 (the port being used to receive). Such a failure may, for example, be due to the physical connection 106 becoming unplugged.”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hebbar further teaches wherein the supervisor card is the only supervisor card in the network device (see, Hebbar: Fig. 3, Chassis 1 and Supervisor 1 (S1) and para. [0034], “master chassis 305 has a single supervisor card 315 and a plurality of linecards 325.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Burns further teaches wherein using Gratuitous Address Resolution Protocol or Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements to advertise that the management interface is reachable on a second data path connected to the second physical port (see, Burns: Fig. 4, Step 405; para. [0037], “Next (step 405), ATCP stack 114 in slow-path causes port aggregation driver 112 to have NID 103 send out a "gratuitous Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request" to switch 105. This ARP request serves to advertise to switch 105 that the MAC address (MAC address A) that previously identified the failed Port 1 is now to be associated with Port 2. This gratuitous ARP request is sent because some intelligent switches, upon detecting the same MAC address on two physical ports, may function to isolate both ports. An isolated port is a failed port to the switch, and all communications from the isolated port would be ignored. NID 103 therefore sends the gratuitous ARP request out via Port 2 to cause such a sophisticated switch to reconfigure itself to know that MAC A is now associated with Port 2.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert in view of Burns further in view of Hebbar further in view of Seed et al. (US 2016/0174148 A1, hereinafter Seed).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar does not explicitly teach wherein the probe packets are Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Neighbor Solicitation probes, wherein a failure is deemed to have occurred when one or more responses to the IPv6 probes are not received.
In the same field of endeavor, Seed teaches wherein the probe packets are Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Neighbor Solicitation probes, wherein a failure is deemed to have occurred when one or more responses to the IPv6 probes are not received (see, Seed: para. [0056], “The probe state 506 may indicate that the neighbor node is no longer known to be reachable, and unicast neighbor solicitation probes are being sent to verify reachability of the neighbor node. The unreachable state 512 may indicate that the neighbor node is no longer reachable. Thus, the first node may remove the entry associated with the neighbor node from the first node's neighbor cache.”; para. [0027], “The 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery Request for Change (RFC) 6775 is a version of IPv6 neighbor discovery targeted for use in 6LoWPAN based networks.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hebert in view of Burns and Hebbar in combination of the teachings of Seed in order to verify reachability of the neighbor node (see, Seed: para. [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 9, 11, 16, and 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights