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 25-44 are pending for examination in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2024 and 12/13/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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.
Claim(s) 25-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579” in view of Katz et al. (CFR 5880), hereinafter “Katz”.
Claim(s) 25, 34 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579”.
As to claim 25. CN-579 discloses, a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instruction, which when executed by one or more processing resources of a monitor node of a distributed system cause an agent running on the monitor node (CN-579, Abstract) to:
receive, from a process running on the monitor node, a request to send a probe packet to the monitored node (CN-579, page.2, step-1,2, when node was received the message (signaling or data) of neighbor node transmission, then writing down this time was the nearest activity time of neighbor node.);
after receipt of the request, cause the probe packet to be transmitted to the monitored node at a time (CN-579, page.2, step-3,4, if in time T S, node is received " response " message of neighbor node, illustrates that then this neighbor node still survives, and the record current time is the nearest activity time of neighbor node); and
after expiration of a time period in which a response packet to the probe packet has not been received, notify the process of a failure relating to the monitored node ((CN-579, page.2, step-4,5, Otherwise, illustrating that neighbor node breaks down, node sends message to index server, informs that this neighbor node breaks down and after receiving the message of node report, index server is deleted the information of malfunctioning node from database).
CN-579 however is silent to disclose explicitly, after receipt of the request, cause the probe packet to be transmitted to the monitored node at a time specified by a time-based packet scheduling feature of a network interface associated with the monitor node.
Katz discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, after receipt of the request, cause the probe packet to be transmitted to the monitored node at a time specified by a time-based packet scheduling feature of a network interface associated with the monitor node (Katz, section 6.5 and 6.6, discloses a poll sequence of the control packet via scheduling mechanism).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of Katz into those of CN-579 to provide a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. It operates independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols.
As to claim 34, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 25 above.
As to claim 40, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 25 above.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579” in view of Katz et al. (CFR 5880), hereinafter “Katz” and further in view of Shvodian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0101253 A1), hereinafter “Shvod”.
As to claim 26. The combine system of CN-579 and Katz disclose the invention as in parent claim above. CN-579 and Katz however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the instructions further cause the agent to determine a round-trip time (RTT) for each of a plurality of probe packets based on a first time at which a given probe packet of the plurality of probe packets was transmitted from the monitor node and a second time at which a corresponding response packet to the given probe packet was received at the monitor node.
Shvod discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, further cause the agent to determine a round-trip time (RTT) for each of a plurality of probe packets based on a first time at which a given probe packet of the plurality of probe packets was transmitted from the monitor node and a second time at which a corresponding response packet to the given probe packet was received at the monitor node (Shvod, [0020], The controller 210 is configured to transmit a round trip time (RTT) measurement packet to a network element at the destination node via the interface 205 and to measure a RTT from transmission of the RTT measurement packet to reception of a response from the destination node to determine if the RTT is greater than a predetermined time period such as, for example, 2 ms or 7 ms.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Shvod” into those of “CN-579 and Katz) to provide a method for measuring round trip time (RTT), an RTT measurement packet is transmitted to a destination node. The RTT from transmission of the RTT measurement packet to reception of a response from the destination node is measured to determine if the RTT is greater than a predetermined time period. If the RTT is greater than the predetermined time period, an RTT measurement packet is repeatedly retransmitted at a different time interval and the RTT is remeasured until either the RTT measurement packet has been transmitted a predetermined number of times or the RTT is not greater than the predetermined time period.
Claim(s) 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579” in view of Katz et al. (CFR 5880), hereinafter “Katz” and further in view of Carlson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0017121 A1), hereinafter “Carl”.
As to claim 27. The combine system of CN-579 and Katz disclose the invention as in parent claim above. CN-579 and Katz however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the instructions further cause the agent to establish the time period based on an average round-trip time (RTT) of a plurality of probe packets.
Carl however discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the instructions further cause the agent to establish the time period based on an average round-trip time (RTT) of a plurality of probe packets (Carl, [0004], calculating an average round-trip transmission time for each of the plurality of communication paths over the time interval).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Carl” into those of “CN-579 and Katz) to provide a method including: receiving transmission data over a selected time interval for each of a plurality of communication paths; calculating an average round-trip transmission time for each of the plurality of communication paths over the time interval; comparing an average round-trip transmission time for a communication path having the highest and lowest average round-trip transmission time to a threshold value and based on a result of comparing the highest and lowest round-trip transmission time to the threshold value, whether the time period indicates a delay in communication between the I/O subsystem and the control unit requiring at least one of a monitoring action and a recovery action.
As to claim 35, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 27 above.
Claim(s) 28-29, 36 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579” in view of Katz et al. (CFR 5880), hereinafter “Katz” and further in view of Klemets et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0234494 A1), hereinafter “Klem”.
As to claim 28. The combine system of CN-579 and Katz disclose the invention as in parent claim above. CN-579 and Katz however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein a peer agent runs within the monitored node , wherein the peer agent is interposed between a networking stack of a kernel of an operating system (OS) of the monitored node and a transmission media coupling the monitored node in communication with the monitor node, and wherein the response packet is generated by the peer agent (Klem, [0043], the peer receiver application 224 can generate packets for transmission over the communication channels 250 and 260 and can communicate the packets to the NIC(s) 216 either directly or by using the operating system kernel 222 and the peer receiver application 224 can receive packets from the NIC(s) 216 that are transmitted over the communication channels 250 and 260.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Carl” into those of “CN-579 and Katz) to provide a method can be used to initiate peer-to-peer communications between a transmitting device and a receiving device over an inactive first communication channel. The method can include determining an address associated with a second communication channel of the receiving device. A packet addressed to the receiving device can be transmitted over the second communication channel to cause the receiving device to begin a sequence to activate the first communication channel. Communication can be initiated over the first communication channel from the transmitting device to the receiving device at a different address associated with the first communication channel.
As to claim 29. The combine system of CN-579, Katz and Klem disclose the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein the agent runs within a kernel framework that provides a programmable network data path in the kernel and wherein the kernel framework is attached via a driver of the network interface (Klem, [0042], The operating system kernel 222 can include different software routines, modules, or components for managing different aspects of the execution of programs and for interfacing with the hardware of the computing device 210.).
As to claim 36, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 29 above.
As to claim 41, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 29 above.
Claim(s) 30, 37 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579” in view of Katz et al. (CFR 5880), hereinafter “Katz” and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0206964 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
As to claim 30. The combine system of CN-579 and Katz disclose the invention as in parent claim above including a network interface card (CN-579, fig.2, communication between server and node). CN-579 and Katz however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the network interface comprises a smart network interface card and wherein the agent runs within the smart network interface card.
Kim however discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the network interface comprises a smart network interface card and wherein the agent runs within the smart network interface card (Kim, [0101], the smart NIC operating system received by the host computer are update programs for previously installed versions of the host-computer hypervisor program and the smart NIC operating system.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Kim” into those of “CN-579 and Katz) to provide a method accessing a set of one or more external storages operating outside of the host computer through a shared port of the NIC that is not only used to access the set of external storages but also for forwarding packets not related to an external storage. In some embodiments, the method accesses the external storage set by using a network fabric storage driver that employs a network fabric storage protocol to access the external storage set.
As to claim 37, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 30 above.
As to claim 42, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 30 above.
Claim(s) 31-33, 38 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101771579 A1, hereinafter “CN-579” in view of Katz et al. (CFR 5880), hereinafter “Katz” and further in view of Sekiguechi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0272091 A1), hereinafter “Sek”.
As to claim 31. The combine system of CN-579 and Katz disclose the invention as in parent claim above. CN-579 and Katz however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the distributed system comprises a cluster, the monitor node comprises a primary node of the cluster, and the monitored node comprises a worker node of the cluster that is managed by the primary node.
Sek however discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the distributed system comprises a cluster, the monitor node comprises a primary node of the cluster, and the monitored node comprises a worker node of the cluster that is managed by the primary node (Sek, [0006], these kinds of control are executed by software called cluster management software which executes in the primary node and the backup node.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Sek” into those of “CN-579 and Katz) to provide a method such as, upon receiving the notice, the LPAR notifies the hypervisor that it has executed processing to cope with a fault. The hypervisor provides an interface for acquiring a situation of a notice situation. It is made possible to register and acquire a situation of coping with a hardware fault allowing continuation of execution through the interface, and it is made possible to make a decision as to the situation of coping with a fault in the computers as a whole.
As to claim 32. The combine system of CN-579, Katz and Sek disclose the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein the cluster comprises a cluster of a container management system and the process is associated with an orchestrator of the cluster of the container management system (Sek, [0006], these kinds of control are executed by software called cluster management software which executes in the primary node and the backup node.).
As to claim 33. The combine system of CN-579, Katz and Sek disclose the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein the failure comprises a failure of the monitored node or a failure of a microservice or an application associated with the monitored node (Sek, [0006], these kinds of control are executed by software called cluster management software which executes in the primary node and the backup node.).
As to claim 38, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 31 above.
As to claim 39, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 32 above.
As to claim 43, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 31 above.
As to claim 44, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 32 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571 272-7952. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446