DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 April 2026 is 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. “system of claim 5” should be amended to “system of claim 14” on line 1 of the claim as claim 5 is a method claim which is a different statutory class. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 20120144064 A1) in view of Abts (US 8730965 B2).
As for Claims 1, 10, 19 Parker discloses
determining a set of paths through a hierarchical network from a source to a destination, the hierarchical network comprising a plurality of layers, and a respective layer including a plurality of network devices (i.e. expressly describes the dragonfly topology as a hierarchical network having a router, group, and system levels. Packets travel from a source node to a target node through multiple dimensions and multiple minimal and non-minimal paths are available)(¶0047, 0101-0104);
mapping a respective path to a plurality of bits comprising one or more bits indicating a next-hop network device on the respective path (i.e. uses routing tables to represent available paths. Global and local table entries contain multiple six-bit port numbers. Those ports lead to another Aries (name of router) or toward the target group. Target group numbers together with deterministic hash bits index the table)(¶0134-0135, 0145-0147);
receiving, by a network device in a first layer of the hierarchical network, a packet indicating a traffic class and a destination address (i.e. router input queue receives packets and determines how to route them. A routing control field (traffic class) in the packet header specifies the routing type, including deterministic routing. Parker also uses the destination node/address, target identifier, and packet address derived hash information for routing.)(¶0105,0112, and 0131);
responsive to the traffic class corresponding to a second type, forwarding the packet in accordance with an adaptive forwarding algorithm based on information interpreted dynamically by the network device (i.e. teaches adaptive routing that selects among legal paths based on dynamically changing congestion and down-link information. The router uses queue occupancy ,credits, link status and congestion values. An adaptive routing control type selects bias values and the router chooses the port having the lowest adjusted congestion.(¶0096-0098 and 0149-0150)
Parker fails to disclose
responsive to the traffic class corresponding to a first type, applying a deterministic forwarding algorithm by: identifying, based on the destination address, a first path mapped to a first plurality of bits,
wherein the destination address includes the first plurality of bits;
and forwarding, via the first path, the packet to a next-hop network device indicated by the first plurality of bits;
In an analogous art, Abts discloses
responsive to the traffic class corresponding to a first type (i.e. receives a packet header field or opcode identifying a routing type as random, adaptive, or deterministic.)( Col.5 lines 3-15) ,
applying a deterministic forwarding algorithm by: identifying, based on the destination address, a first path mapped to a first plurality of bits (i.e. identifies a first path based on the packet destination address by using upper bits of an Infiniband destination LID)(Col. 7, line 66 to Col.8 line 10),
wherein the destination address includes the first plurality of bits (i.e. The destination field(destination address)is used to index a forwarding table that supplies the route and associated output-port grouping. Thus, a first path is mapped to a plurality of path-selection bits included in the destination address.)(Col.4 line 60 to Col. 5, line 14); table memory 300, Destination Field 304 – Fig. 3 );
and forwarding, via the first path, the packet to a next-hop network device indicated by the first plurality of bits (i.e. The bits indicate the next-hop device through output port mapping in deterministic mode. Deterministic mode uses the path-selection bits to obtain a primary output port group, selects a valid port, and forwards the packet through that port to the next router.)(Col. 6 lines 7-30);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker to include responsive to the traffic class corresponding to a first type, applying a deterministic forwarding algorithm by: identifying, based on the destination address, a first path mapped to a first plurality of bits, wherein the destination address includes the first plurality of bits; and forwarding, via the first path, the packet to a next-hop network device indicated by the first plurality of bits; as taught by Abts for the benefit of providing deterministic forwarding based on destination address bit patterns, thereby enabling efficient and predictable selection of a next-hop network device while improving performance and scalability of the network.
As for Claims 3, 12, and 20, Parker in view of Abts discloses, in particular Parker teaches wherein the hierarchical network comprises a dragonfly network which includes a plurality of groups of network devices (i.e. The Dragonfly topology is a hierarchical network with three levels and groups of network devices. )(¶0047; Groups 101,102,103 – fig.1),
wherein the network devices in a respective group comprise a first layer of the hierarchical network and are connected to each other in an all-to-all manner (i.e. The first layer is a two-dimensional flattened butterfly that connects all of the router chips within a local group . the dragonfly topology is completely interconnected using a 1-D flattened butterfly topology)(¶0050 and 0101),
wherein the groups in the plurality of groups comprise a second layer of the hierarchical network and are connected to each other via a plurality of global links in an all-to-all manner(i.e. each group is treated as a very high-radix router, and a single dimension flattened butterfly (all-to-all) connects all of the groups to form the second layer of the dragonfly topology example presented here )(¶0101),
and wherein a respective network device is coupled to one or more endpoint or processing nodes (i.e. each router has connection to p nodes. simple example of the dragonfly is shown in FIG. 3 with p=h=2 (two processing nodes per router and two channels within each router coupled to other groups )(¶0050; Fig.3).
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 1.
As for Claims 7 and 16, Parker in view of Abts discloses, in particular Parker teaches
determining that the traffic class is associated with a third type (i.e. type of routing used for a packet is determined by a routing control field(traffic class) in the packet header)(¶ 0112);
and applying another forwarding algorithm comprising at least one of: another deterministic forwarding algorithm(i.e. three type possible, deterministic non-minimal hashed routing, and deterministic minimal non hashed routing, and deterministic minimal hashed routing.)(¶0112-0114);
or another adaptive forwarding algorithm.
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Abts and in further view of Bloch (US 8576715 B2).
Parker and Abts fail to disclose
the method further comprising: allowing a user to set a type for the traffic class;
and applying, based on the traffic class type set by the user, one of the deterministic forwarding algorithm and the adaptive forwarding algorithm for forwarding the packet.
In an analogous art, Bloch discloses
allowing a user to set a type for the traffic class (the mode assignment policy, whether represented by a table or otherwise, is configurable and may be modified by the operator as desired. The mode assignment policy is used for the mode selection unit which selects a routing mode (type))(Col. 6, lines 14-16, Col.7 lines 17-24, Col.9 lines 52-55);
and applying, based on the traffic class type set by the user, one of the deterministic forwarding algorithm and the adaptive forwarding algorithm for forwarding the packet (i.e. based on the mode selected, the switch applies the static mode (deterministic), where all the packets in a given flow are routed over a single pre-configured routing path, or an AR mode (adaptive) where the path is selected from port load grades evaluated at forwarding time )(Col.3 lines 20 -34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker in view of Abts to include
the method further comprising: allowing a user to set a type for the traffic class;
and applying, based on the traffic class type set by the user, one of the deterministic forwarding algorithm and the adaptive forwarding algorithm for forwarding the packet as taught in Bloch for the benefit of allowing traffic to be forwarded using the forwarding algorithm most appropriate for the selected traffic class, thereby improving routing flexibility.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Abts as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Wai (US 20040213570 A1).
As for Claim 4 and 13, Parker in view of Abts fail to disclose wherein a first set of the plurality of bits indicates a next-hop network device comprising at least one of:
a local network device in a same group as the network device;
a remote network device in a different group from the network device, the remote network device connected to the same group as the network device based on a global link;
or the destination network device;
wherein, in response to a choice of paths remaining, a second set of the plurality of bits indicates a link to be used at the next-hop network device;
and wherein, in response to a choice of paths remaining, a third set of the plurality of bits indicates a link of a plurality of links to use to reach the destination network device.
In an analogous art, Wai discloses
wherein a first set of the plurality of bits indicates a next-hop network device comprising at least one of:
a local network device in a same group as the network device (i.e. teaches an address header having a node field for each node in the network. Each node field has port fields, and each port field includes bits corresponding to the node’s output ports. A specific output port is selected by setting the corresponding bit. Because each output port links the node to another node, that set bit indicates the next-hop network device connected to the selected port.)(¶0033-0035);
a remote network device in a different group from the network device, the remote network device connected to the same group as the network device based on a global link;
or the destination network device;
wherein, in response to a choice of paths remaining, a second set of the plurality of bits indicates a link to be used at the next-hop network device (i.e. when the packet reaches the next-hop node, that node writes its own node field in the address field and routes the packet through the output port corresponding to the set bit in that node field.)(¶0074 and 0075);
and wherein, in response to a choice of paths remaining, a third set of the plurality of bits indicates a link of a plurality of links to use to reach the destination network device. (i.e. when the packet reaches the next-hop node, that node writes its own node field in the address field and routes the packet through the output port corresponding to the set bit in that node field. By doing this for N number of nodes, the packet inevitably reaches its destination.)(¶0074 and 0075);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker and Abts to include wherein a first set of the plurality of bits indicates a next-hop network device comprising at least one of: a local network device in a same group as the network device; a remote network device in a different group from the network device, the remote network device connected to the same group as the network device based on a global link; or the destination network device; wherein, in response to a choice of paths remaining, a second set of the plurality of bits indicates a link to be used at the next-hop network device; and wherein, in response to a choice of paths remaining, a third set of the plurality of bits indicates a link of a plurality of links to use to reach the destination network device as taught by Wai for the benefit of enabling deterministic packet forwarding to improve network efficiency.
Claims 5-6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Abts and in further view of Bataineh (WO 2020236264 A1).
As for Claims 5 and 14, Parker in view of Abts fail to disclose
wherein the hierarchical network comprises a fat-tree network which includes groups of network devices as nodes arranged in a tree-like structure;
wherein the tree-like structure includes a spine network device at the top of the tree-like structure and processing nodes at the bottom of the tree-like structure;
and wherein a number of links going down from a node to its children is equal to or greater than a number of links going up to its parent.
In an analogous art, Bataineh discloses
wherein the hierarchical network comprises a fat-tree network which includes groups of network devices as nodes arranged in a tree-like structure(i.e. FIG. 9 illustrates an example of a three-level fat-tree topology in accordance with some embodiments. The bottom level of switches represents edge switches 912 connected to edge links 913. The middle switches 916 connect to the edge switches 912 via local links 915. Spine switches 918 connect to middle switches 916 via global links 917 )(¶0191; Fig. 9);
wherein the tree-like structure includes a spine network device at the top of the tree-like structure(i.e. The top stage (spine switch) has 64 down links. )(0187) and processing nodes at the bottom of the tree-like structure (i.e. The bottom level of switches represents edge switches 912 connected to edge links 913. Endpoints are connected to the edge of the network fabric )¶(0191 and 0197);
and wherein a number of links going down from a node to its children is equal to or greater than a number of links going up to its parent (i.e. In a full bandwidth fat-tree the lower stages have 32 up-links and 32 down-links. In a tapered fat-tree the lower stages may have 48 or more down-links and 16 or fewer up-links.)(¶0188).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker in view of Abts to include wherein the hierarchical network comprises a fat-tree network which includes groups of network devices as nodes arranged in a tree-like structure; wherein the tree-like structure includes a spine network device at the top of the tree-like structure and processing nodes at the bottom of the tree-like structure; and wherein a number of links going down from a node to its children is equal to or greater than a number of links going up to its parent as taught by Bataineh for the benefit of providing greater downward bandwidth toward the processing nodes, thereby reducing congestion and improving scalability for traffic delivered through the fat tree network.
As for Claims 6 and 15, Parker in view of Abts and Bataineh disclose, in particular Bataineh teaches applying the deterministic or adaptive forwarding algorithm in response to the packet traveling up the fat-tree towards the core network device (i.e. Frames are routed adaptively up the tree from the leaf switches towards the spine switches)(0190) ; and applying the deterministic or adaptive forwarding algorithm in response to the packet traveling down the fat-tree network towards the processing nodes(i.e. and then deterministically down to the destination)(0190)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 5.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Abts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bataineh and Means (US 20240291752 A1).
As for Claims 8 and 17, Parker and Abts fail to disclose determining that the packet further indicates a type of application associated with the packet; determining that the type of application corresponds to an application to which the deterministic forwarding algorithm is to be applied; and allocating a subset of resources associated with the hierarchical network to the application.
In an analogous art, Bataineh discloses
determining that the packet further indicates a type of application associated with the packet (i.e. packet flows may correspond to traffic produced by a process or thread running on an end host and further discusses class of applications handled by the switch)(¶0024 and 0038);
and allocating a subset of resources associated with the hierarchical network to the application(i.e. switch can control how network bandwidth is allocated to different classes of applications)(¶0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker in view of Abts to include determining that the packet further indicates a type of application associated with the packet; and allocating a subset of resources associated with the hierarchical network to the application as taught in Bataineh for the benefit of allocating network resources according to the applications traffic class, thereby improving bandwidth utilization and reducing network congestion.
Parker in view of Abts and Bataineh fails to disclose
determining that the type of application corresponds to an application to which the deterministic forwarding algorithm is to be applied;
In an analogous art, Means discloses
determining that the type of application corresponds to an application to which the deterministic forwarding algorithm is to be applied (i.e. identifies data associated with an application using packet information and uses application specific metrics to filter and make deterministic routing decisions for that application.)(¶0023)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker in view of Abts and Bataineh to include determining that the type of application corresponds to an application to which the deterministic forwarding algorithm is to be applied as taught by Means for the benefit of ensuring that traffic receives the forwarding algorithm appropriate for its application characteristics, thereby improving application-specific network performance.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Abts and in further view of Hewson (US 20110134924 A1).
As for Claims 9 and 18, Parker in view of Abts fails to disclose
wherein network devices in the hierarchical network communicate based on an Ethernet protocol,
and wherein a destination media access control (MAC) address is managed locally by a system associated with a respective network device.
In an analogous art, Hewson discloses wherein network devices in the hierarchical network communicate based on an Ethernet protocol (i.e. Ethernet router adapted for distributing standard IEEE 802 data frames. The network is describe as a multi path network distributing traffic throughout multiple hierarchical levels.)(¶0001 and 0037), and wherein a destination media access control (MAC) address is managed locally by a system associated with a respective network device(i.e. When a frame is received at an ingress port S7.1 and the destination MAC address is read from the frame S7.2. A MAC address look-up is performed by generating a hash function derived from the destination MAC address of the frame.)(¶0092; S7.1 -S7.4 – Fig.7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Parker in view of Abts to include
wherein network devices in the hierarchical network communicate based on an Ethernet protocol,
and wherein a destination media access control (MAC) address is managed locally by a system associated with a respective network device.
as taught by Hewson for the benefit of enabling efficient management of MAC addresses, thereby reducing address management overhead.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ESTRADA whose telephone number is (571) 272-9978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM EST to 4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRIS PARRY can be reached on (571) 272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://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.
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.
/J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights