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 Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 4/21/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claim 25 have been amended. Claims 25-44 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In remarks applicant argues that:
(a) As to claim 25, Applicant argues that CN579 does not teach two processes running on monitor node (a “monitor process” and a separate “ operation process”).
Examiner respectfully disagree because CN579 explicitly teaches that each node simultaneously performs (i) normal streaming operations and (ii) neighbor-state monitoring operations, which corresponds to the claimed “operation process” and “monitor process”. CN579 states each node periodically monitors its neighbor nodes: “node is periodically monitored neighbor node (CN579, page.2). CN579 further states that each node continues normal streaming operations, receiving media data from neighbors: “user node B obtains media data from user node A, C, D….” (CN579 page.2).
The above two activities – monitoring neighbors and performing streaming operations occur concurrently on the same node. CN579 repeatedly describes nodes receiving media data while simultaneously tracking neighbor activity timestamps and sending detection messages. Thus CN579 teaches the same dual-process architecture that applicant attempts to distinguish.
(b) Applicant argues that CN579 does not teach a “monitor node” performing heartbeat-like detection of neighbors.
Examiner respectfully disagree because CN579 teaches a distributed heartbeat-equivalent mechanism in which each node monitors neighbor activity timestamps and sends “detection” messages when activity exceeds a threshold. CN579 describes the distributed detection mechanism: “has surpassed pre-set threshold T…then to its transmission detection message” (CN579 page.1 para 2). CN579 further explains the heartbeat like response: “respond with response message if node is received detection message” (CN579, page.2).
(c) Applicant argues that CN579 does not teach detecting failure based on “activity timestamps” maintained by a monitor process.
Examiner respectfully disagree because CN579 expressly teaches maintaining activity timestamps for each neighbor node. CN579 states: “writing down this time was nearest activity time of neighbor node” (CN579, page.2). CN579 further discloses this mechanism throughout the reference e.g. “writes down and receive that the time of media data is its nearest activity time” (CN579, page.2).
(d) Applicant argues that CN579 does not teach reporting failure to an index server.
Examiner respectfully disagree because CN579 expressly teaches reporting detected failures to an index server. CN579 teaches: “node send s message to index server, informs that this neighbor node breaks down” (CN579, page.4). CN579 further states: “index server is deleted the information of malfunctioning node from database (CN579, page.5).
(e) Applicant yet again argues that CN579 does not teaches the claimed architecture involving a “monitor node” distinct from an “operation node”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because CN579 teaches that each node acts as both a streaming node and a monitoring node, which is an obvious design choice in distributed system. CN579 describes nodes performing streaming operations: “user node B obtains media data from user node A, C, D…(CN579, page.2). CN579 further states nodes performing monitoring operations: “node is periodically monitored neighboring node” (CN579, page.2).
(f) Applicant argues that dependent claims 28, 29, 36 and 41 under the combination of CN579, Katz and Klemets, Klemets does not cure alleged deficiencies in CN579 and Katz and does not teach an agent running “within a kernel framework that provides a programmable network data path… working with a data driver of the network interface.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Klemets expressly teaches Kernel resident components responsible for managing server-side software execution. Paragraph [0042] states that “the operating system kernel may contain a set of executable routines, modules, or components for managing the operation of the server software components and for managing how the operation system’s kennel itself executes.” This disclosure establishes that Klemets teaches kernel-level modules that manage network-related operations, including packet handling and routing performed by server software components.
(g) As to claims 30, 37 and 42 applicant argues that Kim’s disclosure of a smart NIC parameter does not teach an agent managing traffic between a network interface and a programmable kernel data path or monitoring nodes housed in a smart NIC.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Kim teaches a smart NIC architecture in which NIC-resident processing perform monitoring, traffic management, and programmable packet handling. Kim discloses that the smart NIC includes “operating system” that can be updated and that the NIC contains logic for “monitoring and controlling network traffic.” These teachings directly relate to the claimed agent functionality.
(h) As to claims 31-33, 38 and 43 applicant argues that Sekiguchi is relied only for cluster-management teachings and does not cure alleged deficiencies in CN579 and Katz.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Sekiguchi teaches cluster-management software that monitors nodes health, manages distributed resources, and coordinates failure detection across multiple nodes. These teachings directly relate to the dependent claim subject matter involving cluster-level coordination of monitoring agents. When combined with CN579’s distributed node-failure detection and Katz’s programmable data path, Sekiguchi’s cluster-management teachings provide the missing elements for dependent claims requiring: coordinated monitoring across multiple nodes, cluster-level management of monitoring agent and integration of node-health reporting into distributed management system.
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”.
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 the monitor node (CN-579, Abstract) to:
receive by an agent on the monitor node, from a process running within a user space of an operating system of the monitor node, a request to send a probe packet to the monitored node, wherein the agent is interposed between a networking stack of a kernel of the OS and a transmission media coupling the monitor node in communication with 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 by the agent, 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 by the agent 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 specified time by a time-based packet scheduling feature of a network interface associated with the monitor node by the agent submitting the probe packet to the network interface for transmission to the monitored node at the specified time.
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 specified time by a time-based packet scheduling feature of a network interface associated with the monitor node by the agent submitting the probe packet to the network interface for transmission to the monitored node at the specified time (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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at 571 272-7304. 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
Prosecution Insights