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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan et al. (US 2021/0111984, hereinafter Patwardhan) in view of Malhotra et al. (US 2020/0067822, hereinafter Malhotra).
Regarding claim 1, Patwardhan discloses a network device (network devices – Patwardhan ¶0020; the first leaf node 104-1 – Patwardhan ¶0033), comprising:
a processor (one or more processors – Patwardhan ¶0020);
a plurality of ports coupled to same ordinal processing units in a set of host devices in a rail-based network topology (each one of the leaf nodes 104-1 to 104-3 is connected to every one of the spine nodes 106-1 to 106-2 via network interfaces… each leaf node within the spine-leaf network may be directly connected to all of the spine nodes within the spine-leaf network – Patwardhan ¶0026; Examiner is mapping the “spine nodes” to “same ordinal processing units” and the “spine-leaf network” to “rail-based network topology”); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a link status propagation logic (non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions – Patwardhan ¶0020) that is configured to:
determine first link status information of the network device, wherein the network device is associated with a rail identifier (the first leaf node 104-1 may receive the LLDP message 116… accordingly, the first leaf node 104-1… in the spine leaf network 102 can identify the presence of the service node 114 – Patwardhan ¶0033; the LLDP message may include a “discovery” Type-Length-Value (TLV), which can identify the service node, indicate how the service node is connected to the network, specify capabilities of the service node, or the like – Patwardhan ¶0021).
Patwardhan does not disclose where the network device is configured to receive second link status information of one or more other network devices that have rail identifiers matching the rail identifier of the network device, and transmit the first link status information and second link status information to the same ordinal processing units.
Malhotra, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches where the network device is configured to receive second link status information of one or more other network devices that have rail identifiers matching the rail identifier of the network device (a spine node within the leaf-spine topology advertises that its link to a certain leaf node is broken… the spine node attaches a tunnel label to the data packet… indicates an alternative path via another spine node in the same level of the leaf-spine topology that as [sic] an active link to the certain leaf node… include an indication that the route is not the best path to the certain leaf node – Malhotra ¶0021; the tunnel label maps to the second link status information, the broken link advertisement maps to the first link status information, and the identifiers match because they are identifying the same “certain leaf node”), and transmit the first link status information and second link status information to the same ordinal processing units (Malhotra FIG. 5 shows that spine S2 determines that its link to leaf L1 is broken and sending the link information above to leaf L3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Patwardhan to comprise the receiving and sending the first and second link information limitations as claimed, in order to prevent packets being trapped in a transient loop by generating a backup tunnel to a different spine node (Malhotra ¶0020).
Regarding claim 2, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the link status propagation logic transmits the first link status information and the second link status information to the same ordinal processing units via a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) message (various implementations of the present disclosure relate to service node-generated Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) message for dynamic discovery of service nodes in a network – Patwardhan ¶0019).
Regarding claim 3, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the first link status information and the second link status information are included in an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) Type-Length-Value (TLV) field of the LLDP message (the LLDP message may include a “discovery” Type-Length-Value (TLV), which can identify the service node, indicate how the service node is connected to the network, specify capabilities of the service node, or the like – Patwardhan ¶0021; the discovery TLV 414 can include multiple fields:… a value field that comprises an organizationally unique identifier – Patwardhan ¶0062).
Regarding claim 4, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the link status propagation logic is further configured to transmit a message to the one or more other network devices that have the rail identifiers matching the rail identifier of the network device, the message being configured to indicate the first link status information (networking device 610 may be a spine node… datastore 602 local to the networking device… 602 may be a database storing best path information – Malhotra ¶0068; Malhotra FIG. 4 shows flow of data from spine S2 [which can generate data that maps to the first link status information; see claim 1 above] to spine S1 via leaf L3).
Regarding claim 6, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the message is further configured to indicate the rail identifier of the network device (the LLDP message may include a “discovery” Type-Length-Value (TLV), which can identify the service node, indicate how the service node is connected to the network, specify capabilities of the service node, or the like – Patwardhan ¶0021).
Regarding claim 7, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the network device and the set of host devices are a part of a server plane (cluster network 110 can include a service node 114… “cluster network” can refer to one or more service nodes connected to at least one leaf node in a spine-leaf network… a service node can be a server – Patwardhan ¶0028; Applicant’s Specification [0038] defines a “server plane” as a combination of servers connected to leaf switches, so cluster network 110 maps to a “server plane” as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the plurality of ports are coupled to the same ordinal processing units via a set of communication links (each one of the leaf nodes 104-1 to 104-3 is connected to every one of the spine nodes 106-1 to 106-2 via network interfaces… each leaf node within the spine-leaf network may be directly connected to all of the spine nodes within the spine-leaf network – Patwardhan ¶0026).
Regarding claim 14, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the first link status information is configured to indicate a status of at least one of the set of communication links (a spine node within the leaf-spine topology advertises that its link to a certain leaf node is broken – Malhotra ¶0021).
Regarding claim 15, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the status is one of active or inactive (advertises that its link to a certain leaf node is broken – Malhotra ¶0021).
Regarding claim 16, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the first link status information and the second link status information are transmitted to the same ordinal processing units via the set of communication links (Malhotra FIG. 5 shows that spine S2 determines that its link to leaf L1 is broken and sending the link information above to leaf L3; Patwardhan’s Spine-Leaf Network 102 is identical to the leaf-spine network topology of Malhotra FIG. 4, so the communication links are the same).
Regarding claim 17, Patwardhan and Malhotra teach wherein the network device is a leaf node (first leaf node 104-1 – Patwardhan ¶0033) in a Disaggregated Scheduled Fabric (DSF) cluster (Applicant defines DSF as “a spine-leaf topology that leverages disaggregated components including spine switches, leaf switches, and interconnecting cables”, so Patwardhan’s Spine-Leaf Network 102 maps to this limitation).
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim (a host device) is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 1 (a same ordinal processing unit in a set of host devices that the network device of claim 1 is communicating with as claimed), and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 1, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan in view of Malhotra as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (US 2016/0080254, hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 5, Patwardhan and Malhotra do not teach wherein the message includes a sequence identifier configured to maintain an order of delivery. Zhou, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the message includes a sequence identifier configured to maintain an order of delivery (communications interface 603 is configured to receive an LLDP data packet and a first-time handshake packet… used for establishing a TCP connection – Zhou ¶0188; it is well known that TCP headers include sequence numbers that are used to maintain an order of delivery as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Patwardhan and Malhotra to comprise the sequence identifier as claimed, in order to reduce networking costs (Zhou ¶0007) by reducing the number of networks and network management systems needed (Zhou ¶0006).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan in view of Malhotra as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kar et al (US 2023/0188474, hereinafter Kar).
Regarding claim 8, Patwardhan and Malhotra do not teach wherein the message is further configured to indicate a server plane identifier associated with the server plane. Kar, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the message is further configured to indicate a server plane identifier associated with the server plane (wherein the request includes a domain label and each server of the first group of servers is tagged with the domain label – Kar claim 2; all resources available to the infrastructure controller has domain-labels – Kar ¶0048; the application request may be made with a particular domain-label – Kar ¶0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Patwardhan and Malhotra to comprise the server plane identifier as claimed, in order to help hosts and targets get discovered automatically and efficiently (Kar ¶0016).
Claims 9-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan in view of Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barth et al (US 2025/0106163, hereinafter Barth).
Regarding claim 9, Patwardhan and Malhotra do not teach wherein the memory is further configured to store a link status database. Barth, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the memory is further configured to store a link status database (process 500 includes storing data identifying the link and the sleep state of the link in a link state database – Barth ¶0106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Patwardhan and Malhotra to comprise the link status database as claimed, in order to generate significant resource savings by tracking link states (Barth ¶0011).
Regarding claim 10, Patwardhan, Malhotra, and Barth teach wherein the link status propagation logic is further configured to store the first link status information and the second link status information in the link status database (process 500 includes storing data identifying the link and the sleep state of the link in a link state database – Barth ¶0106; Patwardhan teaches the first link information and Malhotra teaches the second link information per claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Patwardhan, Malhotra, and Barth teach wherein the link status propagation logic is further configured to update the link status database in response to receiving the second link status information (process 500 may include providing updated link sleep state messages to the second network device… the updated link sleep state messages cause the second network device to maintain a neighbor adjacency with the first network device – Barth ¶0104; process 500 includes storing data identifying the link and the sleep state of the link in a link state database – Barth ¶0106; Malhotra teaches the second link information per claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Patwardhan, Malhotra, and Barth teach wherein the link status propagation logic is further configured to update the link status database in response to determining the first link status information (process 500 may include providing updated link sleep state messages to the second network device… the updated link sleep state messages cause the second network device to maintain a neighbor adjacency with the first network device – Barth ¶0104; process 500 includes storing data identifying the link and the sleep state of the link in a link state database – Barth ¶0106; Patwardhan teaches the first link information per claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim (a host device) is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 9 (a same ordinal processing unit in a set of host devices that the network device of claim 9 is communicating with as claimed), and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON Y TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM MST, with every other Friday off.
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, WING CHAN can be reached at 571-272-7493. 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.
/LEON Y TSENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2441
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444