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 .
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
Drawings
3. The applicant’s submitted drawings are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024, 03/07/2025 and 12/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
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 1 – 4, 11 – 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0231463 to Karuppiah et al. (hereinafter Karuppiah) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0164736 to Byers et al. (hereinafter Byers).
Regarding Claim 1, Karuppiah discloses (¶20) intelligently controlling the power consumed by light emitting diodes (LEDs) of network devices, such as present in a datacenter, which further includes:
computing system (Karuppiah discloses a central monitor 232 (Fig. 2 and ¶32) with artificial intelligence/machine learning-based technology for system monitoring and predictive analytics) comprising: memory; and one or more programmable processors in communication with the memory (Karuppiah discloses (Fig. 15 and ¶51) a memory to store computer executable components and operations, and a processor that executes computer executable components and operations), wherein the one or more programmable processors are configured to:
obtain network information from a network device within a datacenter (Karuppiah discloses central monitor 232 (Fig. 2 and ¶28, ¶32) can obtain messages from the agent 220 incorporated into a network device 222)
wherein the network device includes at least one visual indicator (Karuppiah discloses network device 222 (Fig. 2 and ¶29) includes the LEDs 228)
Karuppiah does not explicitly disclose determine a network event based on the network information; and instruct, based on the network event, the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as active or inactive. However, in an analogous art, Byers teaches:
determine a network event based on the network information (Byers teaches (¶43) event may be an environmental event, a user-generated event, a system-generated event, or other types of events, such as an error) and
instruct, based on the network event, the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as active or inactive (Byers teaches (¶39) when an error condition is detected, one or more status indicator lights may be enabled. The disabling and re-enabling may be configurable. The indicator light may be disabled after a period of inactivity or use. Re-enabling the status indicator light may occur after one or more conditions or triggering events are detected.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine computing system, comprising: memory; and one or more programmable processors in communication with the memory, wherein the one or more programmable processors are configured to: obtain network information from a network device within a datacenter, wherein the network device includes at least one visual indicator, as disclosed by Karuppiah, and determine a network event based on the network information, and instruct, based on the network event, the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as active or inactive, as taught by Byers, for the purpose of implementing (¶11) a method for managing a power consumption state of a status indicator light in a network device.
Claim 2, Karuppiah and Byers disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the network information includes at least one of forwarding information of the network device or configuration information of the network device (Byers teaches (¶48) configuration of a first power consumption state for a status indicator light is received. The configuration may define several modes, each of which may be manually or automatically enabled) wherein to determine the network event, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to (Byers teaches (¶43) the network device may be configured to detect an event which may be an environmental event, a user-generated event, a system-generated event, or other types of events, such as an error. Byers teaches (¶79) teaches a computer system 600 includes a processor and memory)
determine, based on the at least one of the forwarding information or the configuration information, that at least one network link associated with the network device is an inactive network link (Byers teaches (¶34) status indicator lights are used to provide a status of activity, operation, or other states or conditions of the network device) wherein the at least one visual indicator is associated with the inactive network link (Byers teaches (¶34) one LED often is used to indicate link status and another LED is used to provide an indication of link activity)
and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as active or inactive (Byers teaches (¶35) an activity LED may blink to indicate network traffic activity), the one or more programmable processors (Byers teaches (¶79) teaches computer processor) are further configured to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator associated with the inactive network link as inactive (Byers teaches (¶23) the processor being operable to: receive a configuration of a first power consumption state for the status indicator light, activate the first power consumption state using the configuration, detect a condition (e.g. a network link failure or link parity error, ¶46); and activate a second power consumption state for the status indicator light in response to detecting the condition.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Karuppiah and Byers disclose all the elements of claim 2. Further they disclose:
wherein to determine that the at least one network link is an inactive network link, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: determine, based on the configuration information, that the at least one network link is at least one of: incompletely configured, or incorrectly configured (Byers teaches (¶37) when a condition occurs, such as a system error, additional indicator lights may be illuminated to assist in troubleshooting and maintenance. The system error event is related to a hardware component failure, a network link failure, or software component failure. A system alert event may include events or conditions such as low available memory, abnormally intermittent or low network data throughput, link parity error, or other abnormal operation.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Karuppiah and Byers disclose all the elements of claim 2. Further they disclose:
wherein to determine that the at least one network link is an inactive network link (Byers teaches (¶2) link status indicator lights may provide information regarding the link condition, such as "in service," "active," "busy," "error," or link speed), the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: determine, based on the forwarding information, that the at least one network link is included in a network path with relatively low activity (Byers teaches (¶35) an activity LED may blink to indicate network traffic activity and it further indicates (¶46) abnormally intermittent or low network data throughput on a network path.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 11, Karuppiah and Byers disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein the network device comprises the one or more programmable processors (Byers teaches (¶78-¶79) a network device implemented via computer system 600 with programmable processors, memory and status indicator lights.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 12, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 5 – 6 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0231463 to Karuppiah, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0164736 to Byers, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,438,211 to Lyubomirsky et al. (hereinafter Lyubomirsky).
Claim 5, Karuppiah and Byers disclose all the elements of claim 2. Further they disclose:
wherein to determine the network event (Byers teaches (¶43) event may be an environmental event, a user-generated event, a system-generated event, or other types of events, such as an error), the one or more programmable processors (Byers teaches (¶79) teaches computer processor) are further configured to: wherein the at least one visual indicator is associated with the inactive network link, and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as inactive or active, one or more programmable processors (Byers teaches (¶79) teaches computer processor) are further configured to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as inactive (Byers teaches (¶2) link status indicator lights may provide information regarding the link condition, such as "in service," "active," "busy," "error," or link speed. Further, Byers teaches (¶35) an activity LED may blink to indicate network traffic activity and it further indicates (¶46) abnormally intermittent or low network data throughput on a network path)
Karuppiah in view of Byers does not explicitly disclose determine, based on providing the network information to a machine learning (ML) model, a stability score of at least one network link associated with the network device; and determine, based on determining the stability score of the at least one network link satisfies a predetermined threshold, that the at least one network link is an inactive network link. However, in an analogous art, Lyubomirsky teaches:
determine, based on providing the network information (Lyubomirsky (¶Col. 5, Lines 22 -25) teaches that network management apparatus uses network performance and operating parameters information to monitor and improve performance) to a machine learning (ML) model (Lyubomirsky (¶Col. 5, Lines 62 -65) inference module 212 generates failure event probability determinations and likelihood of various link failure mechanisms, degradation or failure of certain components, etc. by using machine learning techniques using the telemetry collected by and received from communication interface 211), a stability score of at least one network link associated with the network device (Lyubomirsky teaches (¶Col. 6, Lines 51 -55) telemetry values (i.e. stability score, based on collected telemetry measurements) associated with link quality and reliability of data communications)
and determine, based on determining the stability score (Lyubomirsky ¶Col. 6, Lines 51 -55: telemetry values) of the at least one network link satisfies a predetermined threshold, that the at least one network link is an inactive network link (Lyubomirsky teaches (Fig. 4 and ¶Col. 9, Lines 3 -27) during the machine learning and training process using the initial threshold values to report on network performance and reliability and to determine the likelihood of physical link failure or quality issues based on a large number of network link data inputs i.e., telemetry measurements)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine to determine the network event, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: wherein the at least one visual indicator is associated with the inactive network link, and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as inactive or active, one or more programmable processors are further configured to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator as inactive, as disclosed by Karuppiah in view of Byers, and determine, based on providing the network information to a machine learning (ML) model, a stability score of at least one network link associated with the network device; and determine, based on determining the stability score of the at least one network link satisfies a predetermined threshold, that the at least one network link is an inactive network link, as taught by Lyubomirsky, for the purpose of implementing (¶Col. 1, Lines 50-55) network device that collects telemetry measurements related to the quality of data communication and uses a machine learning algorithm to generates probability determinations using the telemetry measurements and an inference model. The probability determinations are used to generate alarms signals or activate repair algorithms.
Claim 6, Karuppiah, Byers and Lyubomirsky disclose all the elements of claim 5. Further they disclose:
wherein the network information includes at least one of: alert statistics of the at least one network link, alarm statistics of the at least one network link, view statistics of a user monitoring the status of the at least one network link, or query statistics of the link (Lyubomirsky teaches (¶Col. 5, Lines 22-35) the collected telemetry received data includes link failure and slowdown warnings and other information from multiple network entities. Telemetry refers to measurements related to performance of data computation, and these measurements may include direct measurements (e.g., signal strength, amount of noise, etc.) and metrics calculated from direct measurements (e.g., jitter, FEC statistics, SNR variation over time, PAM4 histogram (if PAM4 protocol is used), equalization taps, and others.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 5.
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 7 – 10 and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0231463 to Karuppiah, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0164736 to Byers, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0158312 to Junkin et al. (hereinafter Junkin).
Claim 7, Karuppiah and Byers disclose all the elements of claim 1. Further they disclose:
wherein to determine the network event, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to (Byers teaches (¶43) event may be an environmental event, a user-generated event, a system-generated event, or other types of events, such as an error. Further, Byers teaches (¶79) teaches computer processor)
Karuppiah in view of Byers does not explicitly disclose determine a virtual local area network (VLAN) associated with the network event, wherein the VLAN includes a plurality of network links including the at least one network link, and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: configure each visual indicator associated the plurality of network links of the VLAN in an active state and each visual indicator not associated with the VLAN in an inactive state. However, in an analogous art, Junkin teaches:
determine a virtual local area network (VLAN) associated with the network event (Junkin teaches (¶8) a suspect event related to the users of VLAN), wherein the VLAN includes a plurality of network links including the at least one network link (Junkin teaches (¶29 and ¶36) VLAN refers to virtual local area network, a network segmentation of digital data separating Ethernet traffic exchanged over multiple interfaces), and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator (Junkin teaches (¶32) when not in use, a green light indicates a lack of data exchange between the devices, and when the device detects traffic, the indicator light 110 emits a red color), the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: configure each visual indicator associated the plurality of network links of the VLAN in an active state and each visual indicator not associated with the VLAN in an inactive state (Junkin teaches (¶36) detecting the traffic on the VLAN, and detecting audio and video data transmissions and registering such activity on an externally visible green/red indicator light 110, thereby allowing a proximate network user, such as a company employee, to recognize a potential security breach.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine to determine the network event, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to, as disclosed by Karuppiah in view of Byers, and determine a virtual local area network (VLAN) associated with the network event, wherein the VLAN includes a plurality of network links including the at least one network link, and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator, the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: configure each visual indicator associated the plurality of network links of the VLAN in an active state and each visual indicator not associated with the VLAN in an inactive state, as taught by Junkin, for the purpose of implementing (¶2) a countersurveillance system.
Claim 8, Karuppiah, Byers and Junkin disclose all the elements of claim 7. Further they disclose:
wherein the network event is a hot plug network event (Byers teaches (¶46) system error event may be related to a hardware component failure, a network link failure, or software component failure.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 7.
Claim 9, Karuppiah, Byers and Junkin disclose all the elements of claim 7. Further they disclose:
wherein the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: determine, based on the determination of the hot plug network event (Byers teaches (¶46) system error event may be related to a hardware component failure, a network link failure, or software component failure), that an administrator is not within a proximity of the network device (Byers teaches (¶45) the user is not present or in proximity of the network device, thus the status indicator lights are not needed), and wherein to instruct the network device to configure the at least one visual indicator, the one or more programmable processors are configured to configure, based on the determination that the administrator is not within the proximity of the network device, the at least one visual indicator in an inactive state (Byers teaches (¶45) when a user accesses the computer terminal remotely (i.e., the user is not in proximate to the network device) the computer terminal or the network device is configured to detect this type of remote access and differentiate it from a local access, in which case the status indicator lights are not transitioned 108 to a normal power consumption state 104.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 7.
Claim 10, Karuppiah, Byers and Junkin disclose all the elements of claim 7. Further they disclose:
wherein the one or more programmable processors are further configured to: apply a time domain filter (Byers teaches (¶24) processor being operable to: determine a timeout period) to the network event (Byers teaches (¶43) event may be an environmental event, a user-generated event, a system-generated event, or other types of events, such as an error), wherein the time domain filter filters a plurality of network events based on a corresponding duration of each network event of the plurality of network events (Byers teaches (¶39) the disabling and re-enabling may be configurable, for example, using administrative control software. As an example, the indicator light may be disabled after a period of inactivity or use, such as a timeout period. The timeout period may be configurable. Re-enabling the status indicator light may occur after one or more conditions or triggering events are detected. The configuration may also be used to determine (¶48) a timeout period, an expiration period, an active period, or other time-based event to trigger the transition from a first power consumption to a second power consumption state.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 7.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 9.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0296162 to Pakenham (Method and System to Lower Power Consumption)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0123578 to Wray (Power Saving Devices and Systems, and Methods of Use and Fabrication Thereof))
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (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 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:/Awww.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.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451