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 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (Summary of pages 6- 10, Examiner emphasis – Bold)
…Applicant further submits that Bono does not overcome the shortcomings of Boura. More specifically, Applicant submits that Bono also fails to disclose determining that all ports of an adaptive routing group are in a link down state and then temporarily discontinuing, for an amount of time after determining that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state, utilization of at least one switch in the network to transmit additional packets across the network to the destination node, as claimed. Indeed, as discussed during the interview with Examiner Dabipi, Applicant does not believe the Bono teaches, suggests, or describes the concept of managing packet flows with an adaptative routing group, as claimed. To the extent that neither Boura nor Bono teach, suggest, or describe an adaptive routing group, Applicant submits that the rejections of the claims based on the combination of Boura and Bono should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Response:
Examiner, respectfully disagrees.
See updated rejection of claim 1.
In particular, in the updated rejection of claim 1, Zhang et al. (US 2009/0316572 A1), Figs. 1&3 [0032], discloses that during normal operation, a terminal service is sent to the firewall A through the router A, the firewall filters the service and then sends the service back to the router A, and then the router A sends the filtered terminal service to the terminal in the network. Such service transmission path is referred to as a high-priority link (also referred to as an active link). A plurality of ports in the firewall A and being connected to the router A is bound to the same logic group. When the firewall A detects that the working status of any port in the logic group is the Down status, the firewall A sets working status of all the other ports in the logic group as the Down status. In this case, the router A detects that the failure of the ports of the firewall A. Adapting to current state of the ports in the down logic group, the system temporarily switches the additional terminal service to the low-priority link/group of ports for an amount of time until when it is detected that all the ports in the down logic group work normally, then, firewall A sets working status of all the ports in the previously down logic group as the UP status. In this case, the router A detects that the all ports of the firewall A work normally, and switches the terminal service back to the high-priority link, so as to guarantee that the terminal service is transmitted uninterruptedly. Therefore, Zhang discloses “determining that all ports of an adaptive routing group are in a link down state and then temporarily discontinuing, for an amount of time after determining that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state, utilization of at least one switch in the network to transmit additional packets across the network to the destination node”. As claimed.
Furthermore, in [0366-0370], step 2402 -2408, of Bono discloses the failure of a primary node such as a switch with a plurality of ports is detected. In step 2404, a failover node/switch assumes primary node operations (i.e., it becomes the primary node/switch). When the failover node assumes the operation of the primary node, traffic is temporarily discontinued, for the period of time when the initial primary node/switch is not operational (all ports on the switch are down) and additional traffic meant for the failed/initial primary node/switch is redirected to the failover node/switch. Also, in fig. 24A, step 2408, fig. 25A and 25B, [0354;0361, 0370], a cluster manager (2210) monitors and manages the nodes (2220, 2222, 2224)/switches. The cluster manager (2210) may manage the nodes/switches by sending messages to each node and if the manager receives a response, the node is operational, else, the node is not operational. A primary node/switch that was detected not to be operational, a failover operation/instruction/program may transfer control back to the original primary node/switch, which may incrementally resume operations of a primary node/switch. Therefore, Zhang modified by Bono disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11,15-18 and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2009/0316572 A1), in view of Bono et al. (US 2021/0133059 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a system (Zhang, Figs. 1 &3, [0008], a system for managing port status of a network device, and a relay device, to avoid the interruption of the transmission of the terminal service), comprising:
a routing circuit (Zhang, Figs. 1, [0031] discloses a relay device/Routers A-D & Firewalls A -B) to:
transmit one or more packets (service packets) across a network (Figs. 1&3, Networks A &B) toward a destination node (Terminal A or B) via either a static flow in which a port is utilized or adaptive flow (flow is adapted to changing network condition) in which ports (Ports in a preset logical group) belonging to an adaptive routing group (adaptively routing a service packet based on changing status of a logical port group, such as whether the status of the ports is up or down) are utilized (Zhang, Figs. 1&3, [0031-0032], in fig. 3, terminal A and terminal B in network A and network B, respectively, are communicatively connected through router A. Router A is further connected to a relay device/firewall A, establishing a priority path through a logical group of ports in firewall A for service packets to be transmitted between terminal A and terminal B in their respective networks);
determine that all ports of the adaptive routing group ( all ports in a logic group) are in a link down state (Zhang, Figs. 1&3 [0032], in a normal situation, a terminal service is sent to the firewall A through the router A, the firewall filters the service and then sends the service back to the router A, and then the router A sends the filtered terminal service to the terminal in the network. Such service transmission path is referred to as a high-priority link (also referred to as an active link). A plurality of ports in the firewall A and being connected to the router A is bound to the same logic group. When the firewall A detects that the working status of any port in the logic group is the Down status, the firewall A sets working status of all the other ports in the logic group as the Down status);
temporarily discontinue, for an amount of time after determining that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state, utilization of at least one switch in the network to transmit additional packets across the network to the destination node (Zhang, Figs. 1&3, [0032], a plurality of ports in the firewall A and being connected to the router A is bound to the same logic group. When the firewall A detects that the working status of any port in the logic group is the Down status, the firewall A sets working status of all the other ports in the logic group as the Down status. In this case, the router A detects that the failure of the ports of the firewall A, and temporarily switches the terminal service to the low-priority link for an amount of time until when it is detected that all the ports in the logic group work normally, the firewall A sets working status of all the ports in the logic group as the UP status. In this case, the router A detects that the all ports of the firewall A work normally, and switches the terminal service back to the high-priority link, so as to guarantee that the terminal service is transmitted uninterruptedly);
wherein the at least one switch comprises the ports belonging to the adaptive routing group and the port utilized for the static flow (Zhang, Figs. 1&3, [0032 -0033] a relay device may be a firewall, a router, a switch, or a server and so on. Particularly, the relay device stores a list of association relations between port numbers and logic group numbers therein, and a plurality of ports are assigned for the same logic group number. The ports are utilized to transmit service packets between network A and B); and
after the amount of time has elapsed (after an amount of time when all ports of the firewall are working normally/up), increase utilization (resume sending service packets to the ports of the firewall/high priority link) of the at least one switch (Firewall A) to transmit the additional packets (service packets) across the network (Network A or B) to the destination node (Terminal A or B) (Zhang, Figs. 1 &3, When the firewall A detects that the working status of any port in the logic group is the Down status, the firewall A sets working status of all the other ports in the logic group as the Down status and service packets are redirected to a low-priority link. After an amount of time since all the ports on firewall A are set to down, if it is detected that all the ports in the logic group are now working normally, the firewall A sets working status of all the ports in the logic group as the UP status. In this case, the router A detects that the all ports of the firewall A work normally, and switches the terminal service back to the high-priority link, so as to guarantee that the terminal service is transmitted uninterruptedly).
Zhang generally discloses a techniques for detecting faulty ports in a network device and adaptively re-routing packets away from the faulty ports to another network device towards a destination node. However, Bono more explicitly discloses temporarily discontinue, for an amount of time after determining that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state, utilization of at least one switch in the network to transmit additional packets across the network to the destination node, after the amount of time has elapsed, increase utilization of the at least one switch to transmit the additional packets across the network to the destination node
Bono discloses temporarily discontinue, for an amount of time after determining that all ports (Primary node/primary switch failure causing all ports on the switch to fail) of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state (detecting a primary node failure), utilization of at least one switch (failover node) in the network to transmit additional packets across the network to the destination node (Bono [0366-0370], step 2402 -2408, a failure of a primary node such as a switch with a plurality of ports is detected. In step 2404, a failover node/switch assumes primary node operations (i.e., it becomes the primary node/switch). When the failover node assumes the operation of the primary node, traffic is temporarily discontinued, for the period of time when the initial primary node/switch is not operational (all ports on the switch are down) and additional traffic meant for the failed/initial primary node/switch is redirected to the failover node/switch), and
after the amount of time has elapsed (At a later time when the original primary node/switch becomes operational ), increase utilization of the at least one switch to transmit the additional packets across the network to the destination node (Bono, fig. 24A, step 2408, fig. 25A and 25B, [0354;0361, 0370], a cluster manager (2210) monitors and manages the nodes (2220, 2222, 2224)/switches. The cluster manager (2210) may manage the nodes/switches by sending messages to each node and if the manager receives a response, the node is operational, else, the node is not operational. A primary node/switch that was detected not to be operational, a failover operation/instruction/program may transfer control back to the original primary node/switch, which may incrementally resume operations of a primary node/switch).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang and Bono because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques related to fault detection and recovery in a communication system.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Bono into the invention of Zhang. The motivation would have been to seamlessly continue operational of a virtual application even when a node executing the application experiences a failure, Bono, [0417].
Regarding claim 3, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the utilization of the at least one switch is temporarily set to zero at least until the amount of time has elapsed (Bono [0366-0370], step 2402 -2408, a failure of a primary node such as a switch with a plurality of ports is detected. In step 2404, a failover node/switch assumes primary node operations (i.e., it becomes the primary node/switch). When the failover node assumes the operation of the primary node, the utilization of the original primary node is temporarily set to zero (discontinued), for the period of time when the original primary node/switch is not operational (all ports on the switch are down)). The utilization of the original primary node will remain at zero until it recovers from a failure and reassumes the role of a primary node).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the utilization of the at least one switch (original/initial primary node/switch) is incrementally increased after the amount of time (at a later point in time) has elapsed (Bono, fig. 24A, step 2408, fig. 25A and 25B, [0361, 0370], discloses that a primary node/switch is designated a failover node/switch when it initially fails and then resumes operation at a later point in time when the failed node/switch becomes operational. When the failed node/switch reassumes the role of a primary node/switch at a later time when it is detected to be back in operation, the utilization of the node/switch is gradually increased until the node/switch assumes the full function of a primary node/switch).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the utilization of the at least one switch (original/initial primary node/switch) is incrementally increased by a crawler (Cluster manager 2210) according to a utilization restoration program (failover operation/program) (Bono, fig. 24A, step 2408, fig. 25A and 25B, [0354;0361, 0370], a cluster manager (2210) monitors and manages the nodes (2220, 2222, 2224)/switches. The cluster manager (2210) may manage the nodes/switches by sending messages to each node and if the manager receives a response, the node is operational, else, the node is not operational. A primary node/switch that was detected not to be operational, may execute a failover operation/instruction/program to a failover node and may transfer control back to the original primary node/switch, incrementally at a later time when the original primary node/switch becomes operational and resume operations of a primary node/switch).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 11,15,16 and 17, the claims is/are rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 1, 3-5, respectively.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the switch of claim 18, wherein the fault reporting circuit (firewall A detects that the working status of any port in the logic group is the Down status) continues to respond to packets being routed via the adaptive routing group with response messages indicating that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in a link down state until the fault reporting circuit detects at least one port of the adaptive routing group as no longer being in a link down state (firewall A detects logic group as the UP status) (Zhang, Figs. 1&3, [0032], a plurality of ports in the firewall A and being connected to the router A is bound to the same logic group. When the firewall A detects that the working status of any port in the logic group is the Down status, the firewall A sets working status of all the other ports in the logic group as the Down status. In this case, the router A detects that the failure of the ports of the firewall A, and temporarily switches the terminal service to the low-priority link for an amount of time until when it is detected that all the ports in the logic group work normally, the firewall A sets working status of all the ports in the logic group as the UP status. In this case, the router A detects that the all ports of the firewall A work normally, and switches the terminal service back to the high-priority link, so as to guarantee that the terminal service is transmitted uninterruptedly).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 12-13 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2009/0316572 A1), in view of Bono et al. (US 2021/0133059 A1), further in view of Boudreau et al. (US 6,788,692 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang modified by Bono did not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising: a data structure that stores, on a per-switch basis, a utilization value to be applied to an associated switch as part of transmitting the additional packets across the network.
Boudreau discloses a data structure that stores (Table 430), on a per-switch basis, a utilization value (Load information on each switch) to be applied to an associated switch as part of transmitting the additional packets across the network (Boudreau, col. 6, lines 28-47, peer table 430 stores load/utilization information of peer switches. The load information also includes several switch attributes. Col. 8, lines 7 – 19, further discloses a server decision to decide which switch of a cluster of is best equipped to handle in coming connection request from a user. The decision may be based on the metrics for each switch in the cluster. A higher metric value indicates more desirability of using the switch. Therefore, after the metrics of all the switches in the cluster are computed, the switch with the highest value of metric is selected as the switch to respond to the connection request).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang, Bono and Boudreau because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques related to avoid fault/congestion in a communication system.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Boudreau into the invention of Zhang and Bono. The motivation would have been to provide load balancing in a communication system to avoid congestion/fault in a communication system, Boudreau, [Abstract].
Regarding claim(s) 12, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 2.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, Bono and Boudreau disclose the switch of claim 12, wherein the routing circuit references the data structure (peer table 430 stores load/utilization information) prior to transmitting the one or more packets and the additional packets via the plurality of ports (a switch with plurality of ports) (Boudreau, col. 6, lines 28-31, discloses a data structure in the form of a peer table 430 storing load/utilization information of peer switches. The load information also includes several switch attributes. Col. 8, lines 7 – 19, further discloses a server decision to decide which switch of a cluster of is best equipped to handle in coming connection request from a user. The decision may be based on the metrics for each switch in the cluster. A higher metric value indicates more desirability of using the switch. Therefore, after the metrics of all the switches in the cluster are computed, the switch with the highest value of metric is selected as the switch to respond to the connection request).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 2.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2009/0316572 A1), in view of Bono et al. (US 2021/0133059 A1), further in view of Haramaty et al. (US 2015/0195204 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the system of claim 1, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the network comprises at least one of a tree network, a mesh network, a dragonfly network, and a hybrid network.
Haramaty discloses network comprises at least one of a tree network, a mesh network, a dragonfly network, and a hybrid network (Haramaty, fig. 4, [0021; 0058] illustrates communication using Adaptive Routing Notification (ARN) in a Fat-Tree (FT) network. The rules that govern generation, forwarding and consumption of ARN packets depend on the network topology. One popular network topology is Fat-Tree (FT)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang, Bono and Haramaty because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques adaptively routing received packets.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Haramaty into the invention of Zhang and Bono. The motivation would have been, based on a detection that a network switch has compromised its ability to forward communication traffic to the destination node, a notification is sent to the preceding network switches. The notification is to be consumed by the preceding network switches and requests the preceding network switches to modify the route so as not to traverse the network switch, Haramaty, [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the system of claim 1, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the routing circuit determines that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state in response to receiving a message from the at least one switch, wherein the message comprises an indication that all ports of the adaptive
routing group are in the link down state.
Haramaty discloses wherein the routing circuit (network switch) determines that all ports (Fig. 3, all ports on switch D) of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state (Failure of the group of ports in a switch) in response to receiving a message (notification received from a compromised switch to preceding switches) from the at least one switch (Haramaty, fig. 3, [0006-0007; 0057; 0080] when it is detected that a network switch’s ability to route packets is compromised, where the detection may include congestion in a link/switch or link/switch failure, a notification is sent to the preceding network switches. The notification is to be consumed by the preceding network switches notifying the preceding switch of the failure and requests the preceding network switches to modify the route so as not to traverse the failed network switch. In fig. 3, when the link between switches D and H on route 74A fails, switch D sends an ARN backwards toward switch A, indicating that all the group ports on switch D have failed. In response to the ARN, switch B blocks the port to switch C in its AR definition, and thus cause the packets to switch H to go through switch F),
wherein the message comprises an indication that all ports of the adaptive
routing group are in the link down state (Haramaty, fig. 3, [0006-0007; 0057; 0080] when failure is detected in a network switch, a notification is sent to the preceding network switches indicating that the routing group of ports on the switch have failed. The notification is to be consumed by the preceding network switches and requests the preceding network switches to modify the route so as not to traverse the failed network switch. In fig. 3, when the link between switches D and H on route 74A fails, switch D sends an ARN backwards toward switch A, indicating that all the group ports on switch D have failed. In response to the ARN, switch B blocks the port to switch C in its AR definition, and thus cause the packets to switch H to go through switch F. [0080] the consuming switch typically looks up the Destination Local Identifier (DLID) of the Adaptive Routing Notification (ARN), so as to determine the port group over which rerouting may be performed).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, Bono and Haramaty disclose the system of claim 7, wherein the message is transmitted from the at least one switch toward a source node comprising the routing circuit in response to the source node attempting to transmit a packet toward the destination node via the at least one switch (Haramaty, fig. 3, [0006-0007; 0057; 0080] when failure is detected in a network switch, a notification is sent to the preceding network switches (towards a source switch/node) indicating that the routing group of ports on the switch have failed. The notification is to be consumed by the preceding network switches and requests the preceding network switches to modify the route so as not to traverse the failed network switch. In fig. 3, when the link between switches D and H on route 74A fails, switch D sends an ARN backwards toward switch A (source node), indicating that all the routing group ports on switch D have failed).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang, Bono and Haramaty disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the indication is encoded on a header of the message transmitted from the at least one switch toward the source node (Haramaty [0042-0044] discloses the detection of an Adaptive Routing (AR) event with regard to a packet or multiple packets of a certain flow that encountered the AR event. These packets headers having a certain source address and a destination address (e.g., Source Local Identifier--SLID and Destination Local Identifier--DLID). A packet that encounters an AR event and causes the detecting switch to generate an ARN is referred to as an original packet or originating packet. The ARN typically indicates, among other parameters, a flow identifier that identifies the flow to which the original packet belongs and may comprise, the destination address (e.g., DLID) of the original packet, a hash value computed over one or more header fields of the original packet, or any other explicit or implicit identifier that is indicative of the flow to which the original packet belongs).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the switch of claim 18, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the indication is encoded on a header of the response message describing that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state.
Haramaty discloses wherein the indication is encoded on a header of the response message describing that all ports of the adaptive routing group are in the link down state (Haramaty, fig.2 & 3, [0041-0043], discloses the detection of an Adaptive Routing (AR) event such as a link or switch failure. In fig. 3, failure of the link between switch D and H indicates that all the adaptive routing group of ports on switch D are all down. In response to that detection, the detecting switch generates a notification packet that is referred to as an Adaptive Routing Notification (ARN). The ARN typically has a unique identifier that distinguishes it from other packet types and includes a flow identifier comprises a destination address encapsulated in header fields of the original packet. The detecting switch sends the ARN backwards along the route to the preceding switches notifying the preceding switches that an AR event has been detected by the detecting switch, and requests them to modify the route so as not to traverse the detecting switch).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2009/0316572 A1), in view of Bono et al. (US 2021/0133059 A1), further in view of
Levy et al. (US 2019/0253345 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang modified by Bono disclose the system of claim 1, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one switch comprises a spine switch.
Levy discloses wherein the at least one switch comprises a spine switch (Levy, fig. 4, [0038-0040] at step 72 of an adaptive routing algorithm, one of the paths to the spine tier 52 is chosen according to a governing adaptive routing algorithm. The path ends at a selected port of a chosen spine switch. Many adaptive routing algorithms can be implemented in step 72 and in other steps of FIG. 2 that involve adaptive routing).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang, Bono and Levy because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques adaptively routing received packets.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Levy into the invention of Zhang and Bono. The motivation would have been, to choose a path to spine tier adaptively, transfer a received packet to a spine tier, determine downstream path to leaf tier by hash function and transfer packet to leaf switch, Levy, [0040-0049].
Claim(s) 14 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2009/0316572 A1), in view of Bono et al. (US 2021/0133059 A1), in view of Boudreau et al. (US 6,788,692 B1), further in view of Dhage et al. (US 2020/0259764 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, Bono, Boudreau discloses the switch of claim 13, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the utilization value to be applied to the associated switch is expressed, at least in part, based on a number of bits per spine state.
Dhage discloses wherein the utilization value to be applied to the associated switch is expressed, at least in part, based on a number of bits per spine state (Dhage, fig. 1 &4, [0032;0049] discloses a switch fabric configured to facilitate communication of IP multicast traffic amongst host devices. The switches 120-128 are interconnected in a spine and leaf node architecture configuration, where switches 120 and 122 are spine node switches, and switches 124, 126, and 128 are leaf node switches. In fig. 4A, spine 1 includes M data links, where each link of the spine has a bandwidth that can be utilized and expressed in speed or bits per second (bps). Therefore, the utilization value associated with the switch is based on number of bits per spine state).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang, Bono, Boudreau and Dhage because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for data transmission in a switch fabric.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Dhage into the invention of Zhang, Bono and Boudreau. The motivation would have been, for each switch of the network fabric to operate to filter of a global set of host policies provided by a controller to select a local subset of host policies applicable to the switch, therefore, alleviating management of relatively complex and tedious policies, requiring a user to maintain a per-switch configuration and track all host-facing interfaces and their assigned addresses, Dhage, [0027].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following publications show the state of the art related to remote fault propagation in an adaptive routing network.
Watanuki (US 2002/0016874 A1)
Raj et al. (US 6,628,649 B1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DIXON F DABIPI whose telephone number is (571)270-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/D.F.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451