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 .
Introduction
The claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending in this application. This is a non-final office action in response to Application Number 18/863,953 filed on 7 November 2024 with a preliminary amendment also filed on 7 November 2024 in which the abstract is amended, the specification is amended, claims 10, 19, and 20 are amended, claim 18 is cancelled, and claim 21 is added.
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/077972 filed on 23 February 2023 and also claims foreign priority to Chinese Application 202211118797.6 filed on 15 September 2022.
The applicant of record is Suzhou Metabrain Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. in Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. The application papers have been signed by a U.S.-registered patent practitioner. The inventors of record are Weijie Liao, Yujin Xu, and Yiting Lai.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 November 2024 was filed on the filing date of the instant application on 7 November 2024 and before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims have been considered according to the latest Patent Eligibility Guidelines and are considered eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 7, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0112350) in view of Bessho (JP 2009010438 A).
Regarding claim 1, Morrison disclosed a message forwarding method, comprising:
receiving a target message to be forwarded (see Morrison [0052]: “…as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router…”);
acquiring a preset main message forwarding path (see Morrison Fig. 13, [0106]: “An example sequence of events tracking link failure and recovery in network 100 of FIG. 11 is shown in FIG. 13. In the example shown in FIG. 13, at 400 Server Link A has been selected as the primary link and Server Link B has been designated the backup link…”);
when it is determined that the main message forwarding path is abnormal, acquiring a redundant backup message forwarding path (see Morrison [0052]: “…as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router...HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available. If no route is available, a probe is sent out to the peer HAIPEs in the network in an attempt to discover an alternate route to the packet destination…” | Fig. 10, [0086]: “…determine which link the bonding module will use as the primary link. The multi-subnet bonding software sends routing metric information at 304 to the attached HAIPE devices through the virtual gateways on a periodic basis. The primary link receives a low metric (e.g. 1) while the backup link receives a higher metric (e.g. 11). This in turn, allows the HAIPE devices to advertise route cost metrics to the networks they are supporting...”) selected according to device efficiency utilization states (see Bessho combination below); and
forwarding the target message by using the redundant backup message forwarding path (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...”).
Morrison did not explicitly disclose that the backup path is “selected according to device efficiency utilization states”.
However in a related art, Bessho disclosed switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching” (see Bessho [0012]). The most efficient route is selected, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization (see Bessho [0013]).
In light of Morrison’s disclosure describing selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics (see Morrison [0086]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand upon Morrison’s teachings to further describe types of metrics being considered when selecting a backup path and that the most efficient path is selected. Including Bessho’s teachings would ensure a quick switch to the appropriate backup path (see Bessho [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Morrison-Bessho disclosed the message forwarding method according to claim 1, further comprising a process of selecting the redundant backup message forwarding path, wherein the process of selecting the redundant backup message forwarding path comprises:
respectively acquiring the device efficiency utilization states of switches (see Morrison [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices, e.g., switches (see [0020]); [0015]: other performance status measurement items may also be used);
determining a target switch having a maximum device efficiency utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states (see Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected);
acquiring target device efficiency utilization rates of two neighboring switches that establish a direct communication connection with the target switch (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...” || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices);
determining, as a target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target device efficiency utilization rates (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...”; [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected); and
determining, as the redundant backup message forwarding path, a message forwarding path between the target switch and the target neighboring switch (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...”; [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected).
In light of Morrison’s disclosure describing selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics (see Morrison [0086]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand upon Morrison’s teachings to further describe types of metrics being considered when selecting a backup path and that the most efficient path is selected. Including Bessho’s teachings would ensure a quick switch to the appropriate backup path (see Bessho [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, Morrison-Bessho disclosed the message forwarding method according to claim 2, wherein determining the target switch having the maximum device efficiency utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states comprises:
determining a target switch having a maximum Central Processing Unit (CPU) utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states (see Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected);
wherein acquiring the target device efficiency utilization rates of the two neighboring switches that establish the direct communication connection with the target switch comprises: acquiring target CPU utilization rates of the two neighboring switches that establish the direct communication connection with the target switch (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...” || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices); and
wherein determining, as the target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target device efficiency utilization rates comprises: determining, as the target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target CPU utilization rates (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...”; [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected).
In light of Morrison’s disclosure describing selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics (see Morrison [0086]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand upon Morrison’s teachings to further describe types of metrics being considered when selecting a backup path and that the most efficient path is selected. Including Bessho’s teachings would ensure a quick switch to the appropriate backup path (see Bessho [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Morrison-Bessho disclosed the message forwarding method according to claim 2, wherein determining the target switch having the maximum device efficiency utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states comprises:
determining a target switch having a maximum memory utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states (see Morrison [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0015]: other performance status measurement items may also be used; examiner notes that “memory utilization rate” is a well-known performance metric);
wherein acquiring the target device efficiency utilization rates of the two neighboring switches that establish the direct communication connection with the target switch comprises: acquiring target memory utilization rates of the two neighboring switches that establish the direct communication connection with the target switch (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...” || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0015]: other performance status measurement items may also be used; examiner notes that “memory utilization rate” is a well-known performance metric); and
wherein determining, as the target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target device efficiency utilization rates comprises: determining, as the target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target memory utilization rates (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...”; [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected; [0015]: other performance status measurement items may also be used; examiner notes that “memory utilization rate” is a well-known performance metric).
Examiner notes that although Morrison-Bessho did not explicitly disclose “memory utilization rate”, however Bessho disclosed switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching” (see Bessho [0012]), e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices (see Bessho [0013]), and that other performance status measurement items may also be used (see Bessho [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particular performance metric being used to select a backup switch is a matter of implementation choice and that a memory utilization rate is a well-known performance metric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand upon Morrison’s teachings to further describe types of metrics being considered when selecting a backup path and that the most efficient path is selected. Including Bessho’s teachings would ensure a quick switch to the appropriate backup path (see Bessho [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Morrison-Bessho disclosed the message forwarding method according to claim 2, wherein determining the target switch having the maximum device efficiency utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states comprises:
determining a target switch having a maximum queue utilization rate according to the device efficiency utilization states (see Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected);
wherein acquiring the target device efficiency utilization rates of the two neighboring switches that establish the direct communication connection with the target switch comprises: acquiring target queue utilization rates of the two neighboring switches that establish the direct communication connection with the target switch (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...” || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices); and
wherein determining, as the target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target device efficiency utilization rates comprises: determining, as the target neighboring switch, one of the two neighboring switches that corresponds to the greater one of the two target queue utilization rates (see Morrison [0052]: “…Therefore, as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router….HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...”; [0086]: selecting a backup path based on received routing metrics || Bessho [0012]: switching to the “backup communication path corresponding to the performance status measurement item specified as the condition for path switching”; [0013]: selecting the most efficient route, e.g., based on packet traffic, queue length, CPU utilization of network devices; [0016]: route with the highest evaluation result is selected).
Regarding claim 15, Morrison-Bessho disclosed the message forwarding method according to claim 1, wherein forwarding the target message by using the redundant backup message forwarding path comprises:
when an initiative restart mechanism is triggered, forwarding the target message by using the redundant backup message forwarding path (see Morrison [0052]: “…as soon as a HAIPE 104 attempts to send a message to a peer that has been disrupted, the edge router 132 sends an ICMP-DU message to the source HAIPE 104 via its adjacent edge router…HAIPE 104, therefore, reacts almost immediately to a CT link failure, updates its PEPT 138 for primary route to destination, identifies alternate route, and sends the packet across an alternate route if available...” | Examiner notes that although Morrison did not explicitly disclose connection failure due to a restart, however it would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that restarting a network device would cause a link failure and trigger failover).
Regarding claim 19, the claim contains the limitations, substantially as claimed, as described in claim 1 above and is rejected under Morrison-Bessho according to the rationale provided above. Examiner notes that claim 1 disclosed a method whereas claim 19 disclosed a message forwarding device implementing the method of claim 1. Morrison-Bessho further disclosed, as recited in claim 19: A message forwarding device, comprising: a memory, configured to store a computer program; and a processor (see Morrison [0126]: processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage device, memory, stored instructions), configured to implement the method described in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim contains the limitations, substantially as claimed, as described in claim 1 above and is rejected under Morrison-Bessho according to the rationale provided above. Examiner notes that claim 1 disclosed a method whereas claim 20 disclosed a non-transitory non-volatile readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the method of claim 1. Morrison-Bessho further disclosed, as recited in claim 20: A non-transitory non-volatile readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor (see Morrison [0126]: processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage device, memory, stored instructions), implements the method described in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eckert et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0033978): route is selected based on weighted value (see [0039])
Watts et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0224635) – selection of alternate path for failover based on comparison of path performance data for the alternate paths and meeting a threshold (see [0024])
Cui et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0207673) – selecting between multiple candidate backup paths (see Fig. 12), selection based on administrator settings (see [0065])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela Widhalm de Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-1035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6am-2:30pm EST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at (571)272-3889. 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.
/ANGELA WIDHALM DE RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights