DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 04/29/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
3. Claims 1, 8, 13, 18-20, have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14 and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan et al. (US 10,887,122) in view of Manickam et al. (US 2023/0344771).
Regarding claim 1, Nagarajan disclosed:
A system comprising: at least one storage device (Figure 1, Provider Edge (PE) 1) configured to store data (Column 4, Lines 53-55, PE1 pre-configured with a policy or rule) that identifies a set of options (Column 3, Lines 8-20, traffic forwarding techniques such as IMET or SMET) available for network traffic (Column 4, Lines 43-64, PE1 determines whether it has been preconfigured with a policy or a rule associated with any of the various traffic flows that PE1 has received); and
circuitry configured to: identify a set of attributes (Column 4, Lines 31-32, set of attributes) of a packet corresponding to a traffic flow (Column 3, Lines 45-48, a traffic flow includes a set of packets. Column 4, Lines 31-42, PE1 monitors a traffic flow for an amount of time to determine a set of attributes for the traffic flow);
determine, based at least in part on the set of attributes, an intent (Column 5, Lines 61-64, categorize a traffic flow) of the traffic flow (Column 5, Line 56 – Column 6, Line 6, PE1 assigns a traffic forwarding technique to a traffic flow based on sets of attributes associated with the various flows. PE1 may categorize a traffic flow based on the set of attributes such as high/medium/low importance or high/medium/low resource consumption flow); and
assign the option to the traffic flow based at least in part on the intent and the set of attributes (Column 6, Lines 2-6, assigning a traffic forwarding technique to the traffic flow based on the traffic flow being categorized, the traffic flow being categorized based on the set of attributes).
While Nagarajan disclosed assigning traffic forwarding techniques to flows based on attributes (see above) and that the PE device includes a load balancer (Column 11, Lines 50-56), Nagarajan did not explicitly disclose that the options are load balancing options; and wherein the intent represents a load-balancing option that is included in the set of load-balancing options and is defined for any traffic flows that share the set of attributes.
However, in an analogous art, Manickam disclosed load balancing options (Paragraph 72, Figure 4, 450, dynamically selecting a load balancing algorithm);
wherein the intent represents a load-balancing option that is included in the set of load-balancing options and is defined for any traffic flows that share the set of attributes (Paragraph 71, the edge router identifies one or more attributes associated with the traffic. The attributes identify a type of application such as FTP, SaaS, elephant flow, or mice flow (i.e., intent) Paragraph 72, based on the attributes and in accordance with a load balancing scheme, a load balancing algorithm is selected. The load balancing algorithms include source IP only, L3 load, L4 load or PPL balancing which is based on the identified type of application (i.e., defined for traffic flows that share attributes)); and
assign the load balancing option to the traffic flow based at least in part on the intent and the set of attributes (Paragraph 72, based on the attributes and in accordance with a load balancing scheme, a load balancing algorithm is selected. Paragraph 74, Figure 4, 460, performing load balancing on the traffic in accordance with the load balancing algorithm).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nagarajan with Manickam because the references involve monitoring traffic for attributes, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the load balancing options of Manickam with the teachings of Nagarajan in order to improve network paths, bandwidth, and overall efficiency (Manickam, Paragraph 16).
Regarding claims 13, 20, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 2, 14, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: identify an additional set of attributes of an additional packet corresponding to an additional traffic flow (Nagarajan, Column 5, Lines 44-46, PE1 continues to monitor various traffic flows to determine respective sets of attributes for the various traffic flows);
determine, based at least in part on the additional set of attributes, an additional intent of the additional traffic flow (Nagarajan, Column 5, Line 56 – Column 6, Line 6, PE1 assigns a traffic forwarding technique to a traffic flow based on sets of attributes associated with the various flows. PE1 may categorize a traffic flow based on the set of attributes such as high/medium/low importance or high/medium/low resource consumption flow); and
assign an additional load-balancing option (Manickam, Paragraph 72, based on the attributes and in accordance with a load balancing scheme, a load balancing algorithm is selected. Paragraph 74, Figure 4, 460, performing load balancing on the traffic in accordance with the load balancing algorithm) included in the set of load-balancing options to the additional traffic flow based at least in part on the additional intent and the additional set of attributes (Nagarajan, Column 5, Lines 45-55, PE1 may determine to maintain assignment of the default traffic forwarding technique or to assign another traffic forwarding technique different from the one identified by the policy or rule).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, 16, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform load-balancing (Paragraph 74, Figure 4, 460, performing load balancing) on all packets corresponding to the traffic flow by directing all the packets corresponding to the traffic flow through a certain link or to a certain next hop in accordance with the load-balancing option (Nagarajan, Column 3, Lines 10-25, selecting SMET traffic forwarding technique which uses selective forwarding via use of next hops based on characteristics of the traffic flow).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 5, 17, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: create a first filter that defines one or more match conditions corresponding to the traffic flow; and create a second filter that defines one or more additional match conditions corresponding to an additional traffic flow (Nagarajan, Column 4, Lines 43-64, PE1 is preconfigured with a policy or rule (i.e., filter). PE1 determines that based on the preconfigured policy or rule, flow 1 must use IMET while flow 2 is assigned to use SMET).
Regarding claims 6, 18, the limitations of claims 5, 17, have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine that the set of attributes satisfy the match conditions defined by the first filter; and assign the load-balancing (Manickam, Paragraph 74, Figure 4, 460, performing load balancing) option to the traffic flow in response to the set of attributes satisfying the match conditions (Nagarajan, Column 4, Lines 43-64, PE1 is preconfigured with a policy or rule (i.e., filter). PE1 determines that based on the preconfigured policy or rule, flow 1 must use IMET while flow 2 is assigned to use SMET. This can be based on previous known flow rates and resource consumption. Therefore, if the previous known flow rates or resource consumption matches, the policy is followed).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 7, 19, the limitations of claims 5, 17, have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: configure the first filter (Nagarajan, Column 4, Lines 43-64, PE1 is preconfigured with a policy or rule (i.e., filter)) to apply the load-balancing (Manickam, Paragraph 74, Figure 4, 460, performing load balancing) option to the traffic flow; and
configure the second filter to apply an additional load-balancing option included in the set of load-balancing options to the additional traffic flow (Nagarajan, Column 4, Lines 43-64, PE1 is preconfigured with a policy or rule (i.e., filter). PE1 determines that based on the preconfigured policy or rule, flow 1 must use IMET while flow 2 is assigned to use SMET).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to create the first filter based at least in part on data entered by an administrator into a user interface (Nagarajan, Column 4, Lines 43-47, having the PE1 be pre-configured with the policy and rules. Column 12, Lines 65-67, having the device receiving information through user input).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: train an artificial intelligence (AI) model for load-balancing the network traffic based at least in part on at least a portion of the network traffic exchanged between a plurality of processing devices; and detect the packet corresponding to the traffic flow while training the AI model (Nagarajan, Column 6, Lines 7-20, PE1 may use a machine learning model to process information that identifies a set of attributes associated with a traffic flow and indicate a traffic forwarding technique to be assigned to the traffic flow).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the plurality of processing devices comprise a first graphical processing unit (GPU) and a second GPU (Nagarajan, Column 12, Lines 44-46, Bus includes a GPU. Column 14, Lines 39-44, controller also includes a GPU).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam disclosed:
wherein the set of load-balancing options comprises at least one of: a static load-balancing mode; a per-packet dynamic load-balancing mode; a flowlet dynamic load-balancing mode; or a reactive dynamic load-balancing mode (Manickam, Paragraph 56, dynamically selecting a load balancing algorithm).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
7. Claims 3 ,15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan et al. (US 10,887,122) in view of Manickam et al. (US 2023/0344771) and Chen et al. (US 2024/0039995).
Regarding claims 3, 15, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: identify, within the set of attributes, an opcode corresponding to the traffic flow; and determine the intent of the traffic flow based at least in part on the opcode.
However, in an analogous art, Chen disclosed wherein the circuitry is further configured to: identify, within the set of attributes, an opcode corresponding to the traffic flow (Paragraph 164, packet supporting RoCE. The packet includes a payload and within the payload is an operation code (OPcode)); and
determine the intent of the traffic flow based at least in part on the opcode (Paragraph 165, the OPcode indicates an operation corresponding to the data access command, such as write or read).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nagarajan and Manickam with Chen because the references involve monitoring traffic for attributes, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the OPcode of Chen with the teachings of Nagarajan and Manickam in order to reduce resource consumption and improve data write efficiency (Chen, Paragraph 10).
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan et al. (US 10,887,122) in view of Manickam et al. (US 2023/0344771) and Brar et al. (US 2022/0417139).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Nagarajan and Manickam did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the circuitry comprises a top of rack (TOR) switch that resides between at least one GPU and a set of available next hops corresponding to an equal cost multipath (ECMP) route directed toward a destination of the traffic flow.
However, in an analogous art, Brar disclosed wherein the circuitry comprises a top of rack (TOR) switch that resides between at least one GPU and a set of available next hops corresponding to an equal cost multipath (ECMP) route directed toward a destination of the traffic flow (Paragraph 133, each host machine includes a plurality of GPUs. Figure 2 showing the host machine connected to a TOR switch 214. Paragraph 136, to route packets from a source GPU to a destination GPU, ECMP routing is utilized).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nagarajan and Manickam with Brar because the references involve monitoring packets, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the TOR switch and ECMP of Brar with the teachings of Nagarajan and Manickam in order to allow for separate paths of data which provides enhanced availability (Brar, Paragraph 103).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 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.
/S.C.N/ Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/JOHN B WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights