DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/08/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 16-21 have been numbered incorrectly. Claim 16 has been number twice. Examiner has re-numbered claims 17-21 for examination purpose. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 10, 13-14, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)
(2) as being anticipated by CHU et al. (hereinafter, “CHU”; 20240149170).
In response to claims 1 and 20,
CHU teaches a network device to connect to client devices, the network device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor to (paragraph 67, server device is equated to a network device, fig. 1A, element 101 is equated to
a client device, this figure teaches the server is connected to a client device, paragraph 222 and 231 together teach using a processor for and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor):
determine that a cluster split has occurred in which a controller cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters (paragraph 67, using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, paragraph 68, server “X” is equated to a controller, server “Y” “Z” and “W” are equated to subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters);
receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters (paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches this limitation); and
select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion (paragraph 74, target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, paragraph 75, selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 10,
CHU teaches wherein the specified criterion comprises a criterion based on a capacity of a sub-cluster (Table 1, “Load range” paragraph 73,
verification factor is equated to criterion based on a capacity, the CPU usage as shown in table on is read as criterion based on a capacity of a sub-cluster).
In response to claim 13,
CHU teaches wherein the specified criterion comprises a criterion based on a health, a load, or a performance of a sub-cluster (Table 1, “Load range” paragraph 73, verification factor is equated to criterion based on a capacity, the CPU usage as shown in table on is read as a criterion based a load).
In response to claim 14,
CHU teaches comprising: an access point (AP) to connect wirelessly to the client devices, or a switch to establish wired connections to the client devices (paragraph 67, server device is equated to a network device or an access point, fig. 1A, element 101 is equated to a client device, this figure teaches the server is connected to a client device).
In response to claim 17,
CHU teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that upon execution cause a first node of a controller cluster comprising a plurality of nodes to (paragraph 222 and 231 together teach this limitation):
detect a cluster split of the controller cluster that results in formation of a plurality of sub-clusters, wherein the first node is part of a first sub-cluster of the plurality of sub-clusters (paragraph 67,receiving a load parameter
by a server cluster explicitly teaches detecting a cluster split of the controller cluster that results in formation of a plurality of sub-clusters, as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, paragraph 68, server “X” is equated to a the first node is part of a first sub-cluster of the plurality of sub-clusters);and
wherein the plurality of nodes include respective controllers for network devices and client devices (paragraph 68, server “X” is equated to a controller, server “Y” “Z” and “W” are equated to the plurality of nodes include respective controllers for network devices and client devices);
generate node information identifying nodes in the first sub-cluster, the identified nodes including the first node (paragraph 65, determining load verification factor based on load parameter is read as generating node information identifying nodes in the first sub-cluster, the identified nodes including the first node);
obtain sub-cluster selection information from the nodes in the first sub-cluster (paragraph 73, CPU usage is equated to sub-cluster information, paragraph 74, acquiring quantity factor by the server node is read as obtaining); and
send, from the first node to the network devices, sub-cluster information comprising the node information and the sub-cluster selection information (paragraph 85, a target sequence is equated to a sub-cluster information, generating a target sequence to client device explicitly teaches this limitation),
wherein the sub-cluster selection information is for use by the network devices in selecting a sub-cluster from the plurality of sub-clusters in response to the cluster split (paragraph 86, using target game data corresponding to the adjacent node in the target sequence is interpreted to teach this limitation).
In response to claims 18 and 21,
CHU teaches wherein the sub-cluster selection information comprises one or more of the following: information relating to a capacity of the nodes in the first sub-cluster, information of network addresses of the nodes in the first sub-cluster, information relating to a health of the nodes in the first sub-cluster (paragraph 73, CPU usage is equated to information relating to a health of the nodes in the first sub-cluster),
information relating to a load of the nodes in the first sub-cluster, or information relating to a performance of the nodes in the first sub-cluster.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 15-16 and 19 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.
As for claim 2, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ”wherein the specified criterion used by the network device in selecting the sub-cluster is the same criterion used by another network device in selecting from among the plurality of sub-clusters in response to the cluster split.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 3 is objected because it depends on claim 2.
As for claim 4, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein the instructions are executable on the processor to: determine that the cluster split has occurred based on receiving information from a sub-cluster indicating a smaller quantity of controllers in the sub-cluster than present in the controller cluster.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters,
his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 5 is objected because it depends on claim 4.
As for claim 6, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein prior to the cluster split a plurality of network devices that connect to respective client devices are connected to the controller cluster, and wherein after the cluster split the plurality of network devices are connected to the selected sub-cluster, and a remainder of the plurality of sub-clusters are unused by the plurality of network devices.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with
controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claim 7 is objected because it depends on claim 4.
Claims 8-9 are objected because these claims depend on claim 7.
As for claim 11, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein the criterion based on the capacity of the sub-cluster comprises one or more of: a criterion based on a count of nodes including controllers in the sub-cluster, or a criterion based on how many stations the sub-cluster can support.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of
target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 12, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein the specified criterion comprises a criterion based on a network address of a sub-cluster.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 15, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein the network device is a first access point (AP), and wherein after the selection of the sub-cluster from among the plurality of sub-clusters in response to the cluster split, seamless roaming of
a client device from a second AP to the first AP or from the first AP to the second AP is provided based on both the first AP and the second AP receiving association information from the selected sub-cluster that associates the client device with a controller of the selected sub-cluster.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 16, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein the controllers of the controller cluster comprise a network device controller to perform management functions for the network device, and a client controller to perform management functions for the client devices.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 19, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ” wherein the sending of the node information to the network devices enables the network devices to detect an occurrence of the cluster split.”
The closet prior art in the record CHU et al. (20240149170) teaches in paragraph 67 about using one server cluster as a specific cluster explicitly teaches determining a cluster split has occurred, he teaches in paragraph 68 about using server “Y” “Z” and
“W” are as subclusters and cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching paragraph 70, received load parameter is equated to information, performing processing based on received load parameter explicitly teaches receive, at
the network device from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters, his teaching in paragraph 74 about using a target verification factor is equated to a specified criterion, and his teaching in paragraph 75 about selecting target nodes from preset nodes based on quantity of target nodes explicitly teaches select, with the network device from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20190180555 paragraph 266.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights