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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is in response to the application filed September 27, 2024.
3. Claims 1-19 have been examined and are pending with this action.
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed September 27, 2024 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (US 10,887,234 B1).
INDEPENDENT:
As per claim 1, Singh teaches a computer-implemented method for routing data traffic in a communication network, comprising:
decoding, by a source node in the communication network, an Internet protocol (IP) data packet to determine a destination node (see Singh, col.8, lines 38-45: “Packet parser 320 may parse the packet header to determine and/or extract data for making a forwarding decision for the packet. For example, packet parser 320 may extract different layer headers (e.g., L2, L3, and L4 headers) included in an Internet Protocol (IP) version 4 packet, such as the source MAC address, the destination MAC address, the source IP address, the destination IP address, and port numbers.”);
retrieving, by the source node, a routing table for the destination node, the routing table identifying a plurality of next hop nodes associated with a corresponding plurality of routing paths to the destination node (see Singh, col.4, lines 49-52: “Request 118 may indicate the particular path, in some embodiments, or provide some information for determining or retrieving the identified forwarding path (e.g., lookup table address).”; col.6, lines 47-54: “a controller may be configured to program memory devices with new or additional information (e.g., update next hop tables, action tables, insert or remove forwarding routes, etc.) according to the techniques discussed below with regard to FIGS. 4 and 7 in order to programmatically select load balancing output amongst forwarding paths at different forwarding stages.”; and col.8, lines 53-57: “Packet forwarding engines 340 may access data stored in packet tables 350 to make forwarding and tunneling decisions for the network packet based on information in the packet header (e.g., packet metadata) extracted by packet parser 320.”);
determining, by the source node, a plurality of saturation metrics corresponding to the plurality of routing paths using the routing table, each of the plurality of saturation metrics indicative of data traffic saturation along a corresponding one of the plurality of routing paths (see Singh, col.5, lines 12-19: “Different numbers of processing stages, possible forwarding paths, load-balancing schemes, and other components (such as stages that do not perform load balancing) may be implemented. Moreover, the organization of components, entries, and other depicted items may be different than those illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., load-balancing values/components may be generated in one stage for use at subsequent packet processing stages.)”; col.5, lines 20-24: “This specification begins with a general description of a networking device, which may utilize programmatic selection of load balancing output amongst forwarding paths to evaluate the performance of forwarding network packets at a packet processor along different paths.”; col.8, lines 45-52: “The extracted data may then be utilized to perform lookups to make forwarding decisions at packet forwarding engines 340. Packet parser 320 may also be used to generate hash values for performing load balancing amongst different paths at subsequent stages in ingress pipeline 302, as discussed in detail below with regard to FIG. 4, including enabling or disabling programmatic selection of paths as the output of load balancing for different stages.”; and col.9, lines 30-40: “including forwarding engines that utilize hash values to perform load balancing among different possible forwarding paths. As packet forwarding engines 340 make forwarding decisions about the packet (e.g., for L2, L3 and/or tunneling), the decisions are maintained as packet metadata. The packet metadata may be provided to scheduler 360 for scheduling determinations.”;);
selecting a routing path from the plurality of routing paths based on the plurality of saturation metrics (see Singh, col.17, lines 3-11: “then a path of load balancing for the stage that is selected according to the load balancing scheme for the stage (e.g., by the hash value, state information indicating the “next” path, or any other data or calculation performed to implement load balancing) may be provided”; and col.19, lines 19-24: “and wherein the packet processor selects from among the plurality of possible forwarding paths according to the load balancing scheme when the packet processor is configured to not provide the programmatically identified path as the selected path of the load balancing”); and
forwarding the IP data packet to a next hop node in the selected routing path (see Singh, col.19, lines 25-26: “and forwarding, by the packet processor, the network packet according to the selected programmatically identified path.”).
As per claim 10, Singh teaches a source node for routing data traffic in a communication network, the source node comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing instructions (see Singh, col.6, line 59-col.7, line 10: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may include any mechanism for storing information in a form (e.g., software, processing application) readable by a machine (e.g., a computer)... ”); and
at least one processor in communication with the memory, the at least one processor configured, upon execution of the instructions, to perform the following steps (see Singh, col.17, lines 11-19: “A programmatically identified path may be provided to a packet processor by a controller, or other component, via an interface, control/status register, or other form of programmatic instruction that indicates the path to output for load balancing (or the information used to generate or discover the selected path, such as a hash value which may then be used to identify a path linked to the hash value).”):
decoding an Internet protocol (IP) data packet to determine a destination node;
retrieving a routing table for the destination node, the routing table identifying a plurality of next hop nodes associated with a corresponding plurality of routing paths to the destination node (see Claim 1 rejection above);
determining a plurality of saturation metrics corresponding to the plurality of routing paths using the routing table, each of the plurality of saturation metrics indicative of data traffic saturation along a corresponding one of the plurality of routing paths (see Claim 1 rejection above);
selecting a routing path from the plurality of routing paths based on the plurality of saturation metrics (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
forwarding the IP data packet to a next hop node in the selected routing path (see Claim 1 rejection above).
As per claim 19, Singh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions for routing data traffic in a communication network, that configure at least one processor, upon execution of the instructions, to perform the following steps (see Claim 10 rejection above):
decoding an Internet protocol (IP) data packet to determine a destination node (see Claim 1 rejection above);
retrieving a routing table for the destination node, the routing table identifying a plurality of next hop nodes associated with a corresponding plurality of routing paths to the destination node (see Claim 1 rejection above);
determining a plurality of saturation metrics corresponding to the plurality of routing paths using the routing table, each of the plurality of saturation metrics indicative of data traffic saturation along a corresponding one of the plurality of routing paths (see Claim 1 rejection above);
selecting a routing path from the plurality of routing paths based on the plurality of saturation metrics (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
forwarding the IP data packet to a next hop node in the selected routing path (see Claim 1 rejection above).
DEPENDENT:
As per claims 4 and 13, which respectively depend on claims 1 and 10, Singh teaches further comprising: parsing the routing table to further determine a saturation metric and communication status for at least a first set of nodes forming the selected routing path and a second set of nodes forming a second routing path of the plurality of routing paths; detecting network congestion for the selected routing path is above a threshold congestion level; detecting the communication status in the routing table for a node of the second set of nodes indicates the node is turned off; and encoding a configuration message for transmission to a management node of the communication network based on detecting the network congestion and the communication status, the configuration message requesting the management node to turn on the node of the second set of nodes (see Singh, col.8, lines 47-57: “Packet parser 320 may also be used to generate hash values for performing load balancing amongst different paths at subsequent stages in ingress pipeline 302, as discussed in detail below with regard to FIG. 4, including enabling or disabling programmatic selection of paths as the output of load balancing for different stages.
Packet forwarding engines 340 may access data stored in packet tables 350 to make forwarding and tunneling decisions for the network packet based on information in the packet header (e.g., packet metadata) extracted by packet parser 320.”).
As per claims 7 and 16, which respectively depend on claims 1 and 10, Singh teaches further comprising: parsing the routing table to determine a saturation metric and communication status for a plurality of nodes forming the plurality of routing paths (see Claim 4 rejection above).
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.
6. Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 10,887,234 B1) in view of Baliga et al. (US 2012/0320924 A1).
As per claims 2 and 11, which respectively depend on claims 1 and 10, although Singh selecting of the routing path (see Singh, col.4, lines 49-57: “Request 118 may indicate the particular path, in some embodiments, or provide some information for determining or retrieving the identified forwarding path (e.g., lookup table address). Once programmatic path selection 116 is enabled, the identified path may be continually be provided as load balancing 112 output for processing each received network packet 100 until a different path is identified for programmatic path selection or programmatic path selection is disabled.”), Singh does not explicitly teach selecting a highest saturation metric from the plurality of saturation metrics, the highest saturation metric corresponding to the routing path; and detecting the highest saturation metric is higher than a threshold saturation metric.
Baliga teaches selecting a highest saturation metric from the plurality of saturation metrics, the highest saturation metric corresponding to the routing path; and detecting the highest saturation metric is higher than a threshold saturation metric (see Baliga, Abstract: “In response to determining that a medium utilization of a network interface exceeds a corresponding medium utilization threshold, the network device determines whether one of its network interfaces originates a packet stream with the greatest stream medium utilization value for a selected priority class. If so, path selection operations are executed to reduce the medium utilization associated with network interface below the medium utilization threshold. Otherwise, a back-off period is calculated based on the ranking associated with the network device for the selected priority class.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singh in view of Baliga by implementing selecting a highest saturation metric from the plurality of saturation metrics, the highest saturation metric corresponding to the routing path; and detecting the highest saturation metric is higher than a threshold saturation metric.
One would be motivated to do so because Singh teaches in column 4, lines 8-17, “Different possible forwarding paths, such as possible forwarding paths 120 and 140, may be selected for network packets 100. Load balancing, such as load balancing 112 and 132, may be implemented to distribute network packets amongst the different possible forwarding paths. Load balancing may select forwarding paths according to a load balancing scheme (e.g., round robin or hashing), such as scheme-based path selection 114 and scheme-based path selection 134, or according to a path identified programmatically, such as by programmatic path selection 116 and 136.”.
As per claims 3 and 12, which respectively depend on claims 2 and 11, although Singh teaches further comprising: selecting a second routing path from the plurality of routing paths, the second routing path (see Singh, col.3, lines 54-58: “multiple instances of load balancing may occur across different paths in a packet processing pipeline, dramatically increasing the possible number of paths a network pack can travel and increasing the difficulty of evaluating one or multiple ones of a large number of possible paths.”; and col.4, lines 8-17: “Different possible forwarding paths, such as possible forwarding paths 120 and 140, may be selected for network packets 100. Load balancing, such as load balancing 112 and 132, may be implemented to distribute network packets amongst the different possible forwarding paths. Load balancing may select forwarding paths according to a load balancing scheme (e.g., round robin or hashing), such as scheme-based path selection 114 and scheme-based path selection 134, or according to a path identified programmatically, such as by programmatic path selection 116 and 136.”), Singh does not explicitly teach that the second path has a second highest saturation metric from the plurality of saturation metrics; and switching routing the IP data packet from the selected routing path to the second routing path.
Baliga teaches a second path having a second highest saturation metric from the plurality of saturation metrics; and switching routing the IP data packet from the selected routing path to the second routing path (see Baliga, [0103]: “in FIG. 10 where the network path modification unit 110 throttles/drops packet streams associated with a priority level that is lower than the selected next priority level and/or migrates one or more packet streams associated with the selected priority level to corresponding one or more alternate network interfaces.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singh in view of Baliga by implementing a second path having a second highest saturation metric from the plurality of saturation metrics; and switching routing the IP data packet from the selected routing path to the second routing path.
One would be motivated to do so because Singh teaches in column 13, line 67-column 14, line 3, “However, when programmatic selection is not enabled, then hash values 640 may change from one network packet to the next, balancing the utilization of different elements, and thus different pointers and possible paths.”.
As per claims 8 and 17, which respectively depend on claims 7 and 16, Singh does not explicitly teach further comprising: decoding a notification message broadcast by at least one node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one node associated with a second routing path of the plurality of routing paths, and the notification message indicating the saturation metric for a communication interface of the at least one node is below a threshold saturation metric.
Baliga teaches decoding a notification message broadcast by at least one node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one node associated with a second routing path of the plurality of routing paths, and the notification message indicating the saturation metric for a communication interface of the at least one node is below a threshold saturation metric (see Baliga, [0023]: “The automatic network path modification system can determine the minimum number of packet streams associated with the current source interface that should to be shifted to alternate network interfaces of the hybrid communication device so that the medium utilization of the current source interface falls below the medium utilization threshold”; and [0025]: “The hybrid communication devices can identify and migrate one or more packet streams to alternate network interfaces (as will be described below in FIGS. 1-7C) only if the communication medium is still oversubscribed after their respective back-off time interval elapses”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singh in view of Baliga by implementing decoding a notification message broadcast by at least one node of the plurality of nodes, the at least one node associated with a second routing path of the plurality of routing paths, and the notification message indicating the saturation metric for a communication interface of the at least one node is below a threshold saturation metric.
One would be motivated to do so because Singh teaches in column 4, lines 8-17, “Different possible forwarding paths, such as possible forwarding paths 120 and 140, may be selected for network packets 100. Load balancing, such as load balancing 112 and 132, may be implemented to distribute network packets amongst the different possible forwarding paths. Load balancing may select forwarding paths according to a load balancing scheme”, and further teaches in column 13, line 67-column 14, line 3, “However, when programmatic selection is not enabled, then hash values 640 may change from one network packet to the next, balancing the utilization of different elements, and thus different pointers and possible paths.”.
As per claims 9 and 18, which respectively depend on claims 8 and 17, Singh teaches further comprising: excluding the second routing path from the plurality of routing paths during the selecting of the routing path, based on the notification message (see Singh, [0058]: “In some implementations, the communication medium can be considered to be oversubscribed if the medium utilization of the communication medium exceeds the total capacity of the communication medium. In other implementations, the communication medium can be considered to be oversubscribed if the medium utilization of the communication medium exceeds the medium utilization threshold associated with the communication medium. By iteratively constructing the medium utilization analysis graph 730 as described above in blocks 312-324, the number of packets streams to be analyzed can be minimized, a minimum number of packet streams that should be migrated from the current source interface can be identified in a minimum number of iterations, and solutions that do not meet performance criteria (e.g., packet streams that cannot be migrated, potential source interfaces that cannot support migration of the selected packet streams, etc.) can be discarded. After the next packet stream to be analyzed is selected”; and [0071]: “The minimum performance thresholds may be user-defined (e.g., the minimum data rate at which a packet can be transmitted, a minimum throughput, etc.), application-specific (e.g., based on requirements/specifications of the destination application), and/or determined by the destination device (e.g., the minimum data rate that can be supported by the destination device). Throttling the packet streams can refer to reducing the performance (e.g., throughput) associated with the packet stream to the predetermined minimum performance threshold (e.g., the minimum acceptable throughput).”).
Claim Objections
7. Claims 5-6 and 14-15 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.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest neither singly nor in combination the claimed limitation of “detecting available communication interfaces of the source node have been idle for a threshold duration; and encoding a configuration message for transmission to a management node of the communication network, the configuration message requesting the management node to turn off the source node” as recited in dependent claims 5 and 14.
Claims 6 and 15, are allowable because they respectively depend on the allowable features of claims 5 and 14.
Conclusion
8. For the reasons above, claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-19 have been rejected, claims 5-6 and 14-15 have been objected to, and claims 1-19 remain pending.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y WON whose telephone number is (571)272-3993. The examiner can normally be reached on Wk.1: M-F: 8-5 PST & Wk.2: M-Th: 8-7 PST.
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 R Taylor can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Won/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443