Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercier et al (US 2022/0303270 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Mercier).
Regarding claim 1, Mercier teaches a method of data transmission between a plurality of network nodes (network switches) of a distributed network, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processing node (CDM system), a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) frame from each network node of the plurality of network nodes (CDM system 106 receives LLDP frames from access point network via network switch 108; par [21, 46, 53]);
extracting, by the processing node (CDM system), information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes from the LLDP frames (par [21, 48]); and
transmitting, by the processing node, the information in a single data packet to an Access Point AP node (118) of the distributed network (par [21,47,53, 54, 56]).
Regarding claim 2, Mercier teaches receiving a user command to enable extraction of the information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes from the LLDP frame (Mercier teaches that CDM system may receive a user command from an administrator so that it can perform its operations to enable identifying and extracting information related to interface/port in par [30]).
Regarding claim 3, Mercier further teaches that the information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes comprises at least chassis ID or port ID (see LLDP frame, includes info such as chassis ID or port ID in par [39]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein each network node of the plurality of network nodes is a switch (Mercier teaches that the access point may include in integrated switch in par [28]).
Regarding claim 7, Mercier further teaches that operations by the access point, network switch and CDM system may be performed by a combination of a processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and comprising processor instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the steps recited in claim 1 (see par [34]).
Regarding claim 8, Mercier further teaches receiving a user command to enable extraction of the information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes from the LLDP frame (Mercier teaches that CDM system may receive a user command from an administrator so that it can perform its operations to enable identifying and extracting information related to interface/port in par [30]).
Regarding claim 9, Mercier further teaches that the information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes comprises at least chassis ID or port ID (see LLDP frame, includes info such as chassis ID or port ID in par [39]).
Regarding claim 12, Mercier teaches a system for managing communication between a plurality of network nodes of a distributed network, the system comprises:
a processing node (CDM system 106) for
receiving, by a processing node (CDM system), a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) frame from each network node of the plurality of network nodes (CDM system 106 receives LLDP frames from access point network via network switch 108; par [21, 46, 53]);
extracting, by the processing node (CDM system), information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes from the LLDP frames (par [21, 48]); and
transmitting, by the processing node, the information in a single data packet to an Access Point node (118) of the distributed network (par [21,47,53, 54, 56]); and
the AP node (network switch 108) for
receiving the information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes (par [21,47,53, 54, 56]); and
managing activities of the plurality of network nodes based on the information related to each interface and port available in the plurality of network nodes (par [21,47,53, 54, 56]).
Mercier further teaches that the access point (network switch 108) and processing node (CDM system 106) may comprise a processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and comprising processor instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the operations of the access point and the processing node (see par [34]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier et al (US 2022/0303270 A1) in view of Swierk et al (US 9,130,870 B1) (hereinafter referred to as Swierk).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Mercier does not teach constructing a network tree diagram for the plurality of network nodes based on the LLDP frame; and manage traffic of the plurality of network nodes based on the network tree diagram. However, constructing a network tree based on LLDP frames is well known in the art. For example, Swierk teaches that network topology can be efficiently generated based on LLDP messages from the switches (See Swierk; col. 10, lines 18-65; Col. 11, lines 4-18; figs 12, 15 & 19b). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Swierk’s teaching of generating network topology from LLDP frames in Mercier’s network with the motivation being to enhance the efficiency of network switching/routing.
Regarding claim 5 and 11, Mercier does not explicitly teach analyzing the LLDP frames to determining a type of communication to be performed by each network node of the plurality of network nodes, assigning a priority level to each network node of the plurality of network nodes based on the type of communication; and controlling the communication of each network node of the plurality of network nodes based on the priority level. However, such features are well known in the art. For example, Swierk teaches analyzing the header to efficiently determine a type of communication to be performed, assigning a priority level based on VLAN priority and controlling the communication of each network node of the plurality of network nodes based on the VLAN priority level. (See Swierk; col. 6, lines 61 to col. 8, line 39; figs 7A, 7B & 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Swierk’s teaching of analyzing the header, assigning a priority level and controlling communication based on the priority level in Mercier’s network with the motivation being to enhance the efficiency of processing LLDP frames for network switching/routing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perkinson et al (US 2017/0048128 A1) teaches determining network topology based on LLDP frames.
Takashima et al (US 2013/0279371 A1) teaches detecting physical topology of the network based on LLDP frames.
Kawamura (US 2008/0225856 A1) teaches processing chassis ID/port ID in LLDP frames.
Wakumoto et al (US 2013/0336165 A1) teaches administrator using command for LLDP frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY D VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3155. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00a-to 5:00p Mon-Thurs.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571)272-0734. 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.
HUY D. VU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights