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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12113663. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting claims are in a patent by the same inventive entity.
Instant application
12113663 patent
Claims 1, 11, 20 (claim 1 exemplary)
A method, by one or more computing devices, comprising:
accessing a cluster of computing nodes of one or more clusters of computing nodes executing on an edge site computing network, wherein the cluster of computing nodes comprises a plurality of follower computing nodes and at least one leader computing node;
detecting an interruption to connectivity established between the at least one leader computing node and one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes; and
in response to detecting the interruption to the connectivity, and while the connectivity is established between the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes and one or more other computing nodes of the plurality of follower nodes, bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into a first subcluster of computing nodes and a second subcluster of computing nodes.
Claims 2, 12 (claim 2 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to detecting a restoration of the connectivity with respect to one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes, recombining the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes.
Claims 1, 11 20 (claim 1 exemplary)
A method, by one or more computing devices, comprising:
accessing a cluster of computing nodes of one or more clusters of computing nodes executing on an edge site computing network, wherein the cluster of computing nodes comprises a plurality of follower computing nodes and at least one leader computing node;
detecting an interruption to connectivity established between the at least one leader computing node and one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes;
in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity established between the at least one leader computing node and one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes within a same cluster, and while connectivity is established between the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes and one or more other computing nodes of the plurality of follower nodes within the same cluster, bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into a first subcluster of computing nodes and a second subcluster of computing nodes; and
in response to detecting a restoration of connectivity with respect to one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes, recombining the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes.
Claims 3, 13 (claim 3 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises at least one follower computing node and a leader computing node.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises at least one follower computing node and a leader computing node.
Claims 4, 14 (claim 4 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises an edge operator configured to control and manage the at least one leader computing node and the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises an edge operator configured to control and manage the at least one leader computing node and the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes.
Claims 5, 15 (claim 5 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
subsequent to bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes:
receiving an intent from a control plane configured to manage each of the one or more clusters of computing nodes; and
instantiating the intent utilizing a first edge operator associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes.
Claims 6, 16 (claim 6 exemplary)
The method of claim 5, further comprising instantiating the intent utilizing a second edge operator associated with the second subcluster of computing nodes.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
subsequent to bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes:
receiving an intent from a control plane configured to manage each of the one or more clusters of computing nodes; and
instantiating the intent utilizing a first edge operator associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes; and
instantiating the intent utilizing a second edge operator associated with the second subcluster of computing nodes.
Claims 7, 17 (claim 7 exemplary)
The method of claim 5, wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes is executing on the edge site computing network.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes is executing on the edge site computing network.
Claim 8, 18 (claim 8 exemplary)
The method of claim 5, further comprising executing, based on the intent, an application utilizing the first subcluster of computing nodes or the second subcluster of computing nodes.
7. The method of claim 5, further comprising executing, based on the intent, an application utilizing the first subcluster of computing nodes or the second subcluster of computing nodes.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more clusters of computing nodes comprises a plurality of clusters of computing nodes, and wherein the cluster of computing nodes comprises a first cluster of computing nodes, the method further comprising:
in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity, selecting a second cluster of computing nodes of the plurality of clusters of computing nodes, the second cluster of computing nodes having the connectivity.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more clusters of computing nodes comprises a plurality of clusters of computing nodes, and wherein the cluster of computing nodes comprises a first cluster of computing nodes, the method further comprising:
in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity, selecting a second cluster of computing nodes of the plurality of clusters of computing nodes, the second cluster of computing nodes having the connectivity.
Claims 10. 19 (claim 10 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
pinging the one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes to determine whether a node-to-node connectivity exists therebetween; and
detecting a restoration of connectivity based on the pinging.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to recombining the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes:
pinging the one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes to determine whether a node-to-node connectivity exists therebetween; and
detecting the restoration of connectivity based on the pinging.
Furthermore, where claims in the instant application are broader than the claims of the ‘663 patent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of the ‘663 patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 ("Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same function as before").
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, 3, 11, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0173739 to Cui et al. (“Cui”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0179771 to Gantes et al. (“Gantes”).
As to claim 1, Cui discloses a method (Cui: fig 1-6), by one or more computing devices, comprising:
accessing a cluster of computing nodes of one or more clusters of computing nodes executing on an edge site computing network (Cui: fig 1-4, [0004-73]: … network may comprise … gateway computers and/or edge servers [0073] … ),
wherein the cluster of computing nodes comprises a plurality of follower computing nodes and at least one leader computing node (Cui: fig 1-4, [0004-73]: fig 1-2 … distributed system 100 includes N nodes … divided into two groups … election group 120 serves as leader and standby group 130 serves as followers [0026-27]);
detecting an interruption to connectivity established between the at least one leader computing node and one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes (Cui: fig 1-4, [0004-73]: fig 4 … master node (leader) may send heartbeat to plurality of slave nodes (followers) (… connectivity established between the at least one leader computing node and one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes) [0035] … in response to receiving response to heartbeat message from portion of slave nodes determines corresponding state of slave nodes, responses include connection information about slave nodes … and fails to receive response from a slave node 310-1 (detecting an interruption to connectivity established …) [0038-39] ).
Cui did not explicitly disclose in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity, and while connectivity is established between the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes and one or more other computing nodes of the plurality of follower nodes, bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into a first subcluster of computing nodes and a second subcluster of computing nodes.
Gantes discloses in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity,
and while connectivity is established between the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes and one or more other computing nodes of the plurality of follower nodes, bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into a first subcluster of computing nodes and a second subcluster of computing nodes (Gantes: fig 1-8, [0007-22; 89-124]: fig 6A ... “split-brained scenario is detected by one or more of VIOSes still in cluster (and while connectivity is established between the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes and one or more other computing nodes of the plurality of follower nodes) and/or the primary node (leader) or management tool (see with [0089] below - in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity ...) [0090] … VIOS cluster may become split-brained i.e. gets divided into two sub-clusters due to loss of connectivity (in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity), for example …. The VIOS cluster is divided into a first sub-cluster and a second sub-cluster (bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into a first subcluster of computing nodes and a second subcluster of computing nodes) … loss of connectivity of nodes in a first sub-cluster with nodes in a second sub-cluster can cause VIOSes to believe that the nodes in the other sub-cluster are unavailable … this may cause nodes to believe they control a critical resource exclusively which can lead to corruption and to avoid this situation, cluster communication services are invoked between VIOSes to detect loss of connectivity scenarios between VIOSes (see with [0090] above - while connectivity is established between the one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes and one or more other computing nodes of the plurality of follower nodes) and automatically/autonomously dump client data for affected VIOSes (one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes) to distributed data storage for migration to another unaffected VIOS … this eliminates or minimizes any downtime for clients service and/or serviced by an unavailable VIOS [0089] … a first sub-cluster raises a fence to become a primary cluster … a primary node queries VIOS DB to retrieve list of clients for nodes in secondary (fenced off and non-continuing) cluster (one or more of the plurality of follower computing nodes) … migration commands sent to management machines of the non-continuing/secondary cluster to initiate migration from secondary cluster to primary cluster [0092]).
Cui and Gantes are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to sub-clusters.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Gantes into the method by Cui. The suggestion/motivation would have been to prevent loss of connectivity between sub-clusters leading to corruption (Gantes: [0089]).
As to claim 3, Cui and Gantes disclose wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises at least one follower computing node and a leader computing node (Cui: fig 1-4, [0004-73]: fig 1-2 … distributed system 100 includes N nodes … divided into two groups … election group 120 serves as leader and standby group 130 serves as followers [0026-27]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 11 and 13, see similar rejection to claims 1 and 3, respectively, where the system is taught by the method.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 1, where the medium is taught by the method.
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0173739 to Cui et al. (“Cui”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0179771 to Gantes et al. (“Gantes”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0166866 to Rao et al. (“Rao”).
As to claim 2, Cui and Gantes disclose the method of claim 1.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Cui did not explicitly disclose in response to detecting a restoration of the connectivity with respect to one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes, recombining the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes.
Rao discloses in response to detecting a restoration of the connectivity with respect to one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes, recombining the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes (Rao: fig 7, [0049-51] … fault being detected by cluster leader as a result of unreachable node being detected by steady state heartbeat monitoring … cluster leader determines fault tolerant zone and containment zone based on identification of unreachable nodes ( … one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes …) … [0049] … after the M failed nodes have been repaired and restarted, they can rejoin the cluster … repaired node rejoins and node departures constitute examples of how continuous availability provided for most of a cluster’s application services [0050]).
Cui, Gantes and Rao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to cluster systems.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Rao into the method by Cui and Gantes. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide for repaired node rejoins and node departures constitute examples of how continuous availability provided for most of a cluster’s application services (Rao: [0050]).
As to claim 10, Cui, Gantes and Rao disclose pinging the one or more computing nodes associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes to determine whether a node-to-node connectivity exists therebetween (Rao: fig 4-5 & 7, [0036-49]: cluster membership integrity can be guaranteed by leveraging normal request/response communications performed during cluster recovery … involves membership view updates … cluster leader interprets the lack of response as node failure and prompt the cluster leader to designate unresponsive node as offline and node membership in fault tolerant zone can thus be continuously monitored by cluster leader as cluster recovery proceeds [0042]);; and
detecting a restoration of connectivity based on the pinging (Rao: fig 4-5 & 7, [0036-49]: cluster integrity is typically guaranteed during steady state operations i.e. prior to cluster recovery by virtue of maintaining a valid cluster membership view and a heartbeat-based (pinging) ring monitoring topology that detects any loss of integrity due to node becoming unreachable (detecting the restoration of connectivity based on the pinging)… at the time of a fault and during recovery, cluster members of fault-tolerant group are identified as such by cluster leader (detecting the restoration of connectivity based on the pinging) [0040]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 12 and 19, see similar rejection to claims 2 and 10, respectively, where the system is taught by the method.
Claims 4-9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0173739 to Cui et al. (“Cui”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0179771 to Gantes et al. (“Gantes”) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0166866 to Rao et al. (“Rao”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104568 to Miriyala et al. (“Miriyala”).
As to claim 4, Cui, Gantes and Rao disclose the method of claim 1 (Cui: fig 1-4, [0004-73]: … there is provided an apparatus for managing a distributed system … remote computer may be connected to user’s computer through any type of neatwork including LAN or WAN or external computer, for example, Internet provider … cause the device to perform acts comprising: sending heartbeat messages to a plurality of slave nodes [0006; 74] … fig 1-2 … distributed system 100 includes N nodes … divided into two groups … election group 120 serves as leader and standby group 130 serves as followers [0026-27]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
Cui did not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises an edge operator configured to control and manage the at least one follower computing node and the leader computing node.
Miriyala discloses wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes comprises an edge operator configured to control and manage the at least one follower computing node and the leader computing node (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 1 … containers deployed using cluster framework in which cluster master node of cluster manages deployment and operation of containers to one or more cluster minion nodes of the cluster [0061] … orchestrator 23 and network controller 24 may implement respective master nodes for one or more clusters each having one or more minion nodes implemented by respective minion nodes [0062] network controller may operate in response to configuration received from orchestrator and/or administrator/operator [0063]).
Cui, Gantes, Rao and Miriyala are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to cluster systems.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Miriyala into the method by Cui, Gantes and Rao. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a computing infrastructure that manages deployment for application execution in software-defined networking (Miriyala; [0008]).
As to claim 5, Cui, Gantes, Rao and Miriyala disclose subsequent to bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes into the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 1 … containers deployed using cluster framework (subsequent to bifurcating the cluster of computing nodes…) in which cluster master node of cluster (… into the first subcluster of computing nodes) manages deployment and operation of containers to one or more cluster minion nodes of the cluster (… and the second subcluster of computing nodes) [0061]):
receiving an intent from a control plane configured to manage each of the one or more clusters of computing nodes (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 4 … SDN architecture 400 extends and uses Kubernetes API server for network configuration objects that realize user intents for network configurations [0115] … configuration plane as implemented by configuration nodes may be based on Kubernetes … operate as front end for control plane implemented by control nodes [0128] … compute nodes may be Kubernetes worker/minion nodes [0111] … mix of distributed Kubernetes micro clusters where each site runs its own master(s) [0094]);
instantiating the intent utilizing a first edge operator associated with the first subcluster of computing nodes (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 3-4 … API server sends API custom resources to corresponding registered custom API server 300 and there may be multiple custom API servers/custom resource controllers (1st 2nd … n edge operators associated with 1st 2nd … n subcluster of computing nodes) [0123] … custom resource controller(s) start to apply business logic to reach (each of) the user’s intention provided with user’s intents configuration (instantiating the intent utilizing a 1st 2nd … n edge operator associated with the 1st 2nd … n subcluster of computing nodes) [0124]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 6, Cui, Gantes, Rao and Miriyala disclose instantiating the intent utilizing a second edge operator associated with the second subcluster of computing nodes (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 3-4 … API server sends API custom resources to corresponding registered custom API server 300 and there may be multiple custom API servers/custom resource controllers (1st 2nd … n edge operators associated with 1st 2nd … n subcluster of computing nodes) [0123] … custom resource controller(s) start to apply business logic to reach (each of) the user’s intention provided with user’s intents configuration (instantiating the intent utilizing a 1st 2nd … n edge operator associated with the 1st 2nd … n subcluster of computing nodes) [0124]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 7, Cui, Gantes, Rao and Miriyala disclose wherein each of the first subcluster of computing nodes and the second subcluster of computing nodes is executing on the edge site computing network (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 1 … customer sites 11 and public network 15 described as edge networks of service providers 7 [0034]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 8, Cui, Gantes, Rao and Miriyala disclose executing, based on the intent, an application utilizing the first subcluster of computing nodes or the second subcluster of computing nodes (Miriyala: fig 1-11, [0009-144]: fig 3-4 … API server sends API custom resources to corresponding registered custom API server 300 and there may be multiple custom API servers/custom resource controllers (executing ... 1st 2nd … n application(s) utilizing 1st 2nd … n subcluster(s) of computing nodes) [0123] … custom resource controller(s) start to apply business logic to reach (each of) the user’s intention provided with user’s intents configuration (executing, based on intent , 1st 2nd … n application(s) utilizing 1st 2nd … n subcluster(s) of computing nodes) [0124]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claims 1-8, where the system is taught by the method.
As to claim 9, Cui, Gantes, Rao and Miriyala further disclose in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity, selecting a second cluster of computing nodes of the plurality of clusters of computing nodes, the second cluster of computing nodes having the connectivity (Cui: fig 1-4, [0004-73]: ... when a failed node is detected in the election group 120 (in response to detecting the interruption to connectivity ...), a healthy node e.g. one that can respond to the heartbeat message (... the second cluster of computing nodes having the connectivity) in the standby group 130 may be selected (... selecting a second cluster of computing nodes of the plurality of clusters of computing nodes ...) [0027]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 4.
As to claims 14-18, see similar rejection to claims 4-8, respectively, where the system is taught by the method.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A) US 20170339005 – Yuan
A method and a device for processing a failure in at least one distributed cluster, and a system, where the at least one distributed cluster includes a first distributed cluster. The first distributed cluster includes a first Master node, a first Slave node, a first reference node, and a first secondary node that serves as a backup of the first Master node. The first secondary node receives a heartbeat message that includes first indication information. The first secondary node determines, according to the first indication information, that the first reference node is disconnected from the first Master node. The first secondary node determines that the first secondary node is also disconnected from the first Master node when it is detected that a heartbeat message from the first Master node to the first secondary node is interrupted. The first secondary node determines the first Master node is faulty.
B) US20250330893 – Ren
In some examples, a network device determines that a cluster split has occurred in which a controller cluster of controllers is split into a plurality of sub-clusters. The network device receives, from the plurality of sub-clusters, information associated with controllers of the plurality of sub-clusters. The network device selects, from among the plurality of sub-clusters, a sub-cluster to which the network device is to connect using a specified criterion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNE SISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5693. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/JUNE SISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455