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
1. Claims 1 - 20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 16 - 18 are amended. Claims 1, 9, 16 are independent. File date on 10-7-2024.
This action is in response to application amendments filed 4-22-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 9-11, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosser et al. (US PGPUB No. 20150319083) in view of Smith et al. (US PGPUB No. 20110038267).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 16, Grosser discloses an apparatus configured to provide Link Aggregation Group (LAG) load distribution via Layer 2 (L2) source forwarding/routing in a network, the apparatus comprising circuitry and a method for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) load distribution via Layer 2 (L2) source forwarding/routing in a network the apparatus comprising circuitry and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) load distribution via Layer 2 (L2) source forwarding/routing in a network, the apparatus and the method and the non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to:
a) monitor a status of the network, (Grosser ¶ 084: the status of MLAG nodes, ports, and interswitch connections is monitored. Such monitoring may be performed by MLAG modules 160 or switch management module 162.; the status of MLAG ports, nodes, and ISC connections is continually monitored. Also, in step 1804, after the MLAG packet forwarding rules have been updated, control returns to step 1800 where the status of MLAG nodes and ports and ISC connections is monitored for changes in status. The monitoring step may be performed continually.) and
b) responsive to new traffic from an access node, determine a path in one or more LAGs in the network, each LAG of the one or more LAGs includes multiple links aggregated together as a single logical link, wherein the path is determined between the access node and other nodes in the network based on the status. (Grosser ¶ 008: A system for providing at least one node of an n-node multi-switch link aggregation group (MLAG) includes a packet forwarding device for receiving a packet (new traffic) destined for an n-node MLAG, n being an integer greater than two. The n-node MLAG includes an n-node packet forwarding database for storing packet forwarding rules for the at least one n-node MLAG. The packet forwarding device further includes a processing element for forwarding, blocking forwarding of, or redirecting the packet in accordance with the packet forwarding rules defined for the n-node MLAG group in the n-node MLAG enabled packet forwarding database; ¶ 031: multi-switch link aggregation allows users to combine physical ports across 2 different switches into a single logical connection)
Grosser does not specifically disclose for b) perform load distribution in the network and in lieu of using a hashing algorithm in the LAGs to select one of the links, and for c) provide instructions to the access node to forward the new traffic along the determined path using Layer 2 source forwarding.
However, Smith discloses for b) to perform load distribution in the network and in lieu of using a hashing algorithm in the one or more LAGs to select one of the links associated therewith, and for c) provide instructions to the access node to forward the new traffic along the determined path using Layer 2 source forwarding. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for b) perform load distribution in the network and in lieu of using a hashing algorithm in the LAGs to select one of the links, and for c) provide instructions to the access node to forward the new traffic along the determined path using Layer 2 source forwarding as taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Smith for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple communications techniques such as layer 2 communication protocol. (Smith ¶ 011; ¶ 031)
Furthermore, for Claim 16, Grosser discloses wherein a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) load distribution via Layer 2 (L2) source forwarding/routing in a network, the instructions, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations. (Grosser ¶ 009: The subject matter described herein can be implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by the processor of a computer control the computer to perform steps.)
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 17, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16.
Grosser does not instructions provided to the access node include a Layer 2 forwarding directive that causes the access node to steer the new traffic onto a selected link of the one or more LAGs.
However, Smith discloses wherein the instructions provided to the access node include a Layer 2 forwarding directive that causes the access node to steer the new traffic onto a selected link of the one or more LAGs. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for instructions provided to the access node include a Layer 2 forwarding directive that causes the access node to steer the new traffic onto a selected link of the one or more LAGs as taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Smith for the benefits achieved from the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple communications techniques such as layer 2 communication protocol. (Smith ¶ 011; ¶ 031)
Regarding Claims 3, 11, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the circuitry is further configured to prior to the instructions being provided to the access node, configure the access node and the other nodes for the forwarding. (Grosser ¶ 008: A system for providing at least one node of an n-node multi-switch link aggregation group (MLAG) includes a packet forwarding device for receiving a packet destined for an n-node MLAG, n being an integer greater than two. The n-node MLAG includes an n-node packet forwarding database for storing packet forwarding rules for the at least one n-node MLAG. The packet forwarding device further includes a processing element for forwarding, blocking forwarding of, or redirecting the packet in accordance with the packet forwarding rules (i.e. analogous to instructions) defined for the n-node MLAG group in the n-node MLAG enabled packet forwarding database; ¶ 031: multi-switch link aggregation allows users to combine physical ports across 2 different switches into a single logical connection; (forwarding rules setup within data storage prior to processing of request))
4. Claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosser in view of Smith and further in view of Singh et al. (US PGPUB No. 20160191374).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 10.
Grosser does not explicitly disclose instructions include Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Identifiers (VID) for tagging packets of the new traffic.
However, Singh discloses wherein the instructions include Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Identifiers (VID) for tagging packets of the new traffic. (Singh ¶ 035: EVPN generally involves prepending or otherwise inserting a tag and a VPN label (i.e. analogous to a VLAN identifier) onto incoming L2 packets, which may also be referred to as L2 frames (particularly in the context of Ethernet), and transmitting the tagged packets through a corresponding one of the configured MPLS LSP or GRE tunnels.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for instructions include Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) Identifiers (VID) for tagging packets of the new traffic as taught by Singh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Singh for the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple parameters such as virtual identifiers and tag identifiers in the processing of data within a link aggregation network environment. (Singh ¶ 035)
Regarding Claims 6, 14, 19, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16.
Grosser does not explicitly disclose the path is determined between the access node and other nodes in the network based on the status to perform load distribution in the network.
However, Singh discloses wherein the path is determined between the access node and other nodes in the network based on the status to perform load distribution in the network. (Singh ¶ 049: this disclosure proposes data forwarding and messaging techniques that lead to faster convergence and less data loss upon network link failure, while still preserving load balancing, in an all-active multi-homed EVPN.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for the path is determined between the access node and other nodes in the network based on the status to perform load distribution in the network as taught by Singh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Singh for the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple parameters such as virtual identifiers and tag identifiers in the processing of data within a link aggregation network environment. (Singh ¶ 035)
5. Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosser in view of Smith and further in view of Carvajal Rojas et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210051093, referred as “CarvajalRojas”).
Regarding Claims 5, 13, 18, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, including link status. (Grosser ¶ 052: Unicast traffic destined for the failed MLAG port is redirected to the node's green ISC. As with 2-node MLAG, redirection can happen either via the MAC FDB or via an ACL or other database or function redirection; (path determined based upon state information))
Grosser does not explicitly disclose status includes bandwidth utilization of links in the network, and wherein the circuitry determines the path for the new traffic based on the bandwidth utilization to distribute traffic flows across links of the one or more LAGs
However, CarvajalRojas discloses wherein the status includes bandwidth utilization of links in the network, and wherein the circuitry determines the path for the new traffic based on the bandwidth utilization to distribute traffic flows across links of the one or more LAGs. (CarvajalRojas ¶ 049: the load-balancing operation also considers the bandwidth of the physical links. If there are multiple physical links that are local with respect to the line card and these multiple physical links have different bandwidths, the load-balancing operation gives preference to physical links with a larger bandwidth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for status includes bandwidth utilization of links in the network, and wherein the circuitry determines the path for the new traffic based on the bandwidth utilization as taught by CarvajalRojas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of CarvajalRojas for the flexibility of a system that enables multiple environment parameters such as network topology and link status to be determined and utilized in data processing. (CarvajalRojas ¶ 068)
Regarding Claims 7, 15, 20, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the status includes information about network topology, link states, and bandwidth availability. (Grosser ¶ 077: To implement packet forwarding rules for an MLAG, each MLAG module 160 may be aware of the topology of the MLAG and may update the packet forwarding rules in its respective packet forwarding device based on the device's relative position in the MLAG.; (network topology); ¶ 052: Unicast traffic destined for the failed MLAG port is redirected to the node's green ISC. As with 2-node MLAG, redirection can happen either via the MAC FDB or via an ACL or other database or function redirection. (link state); ¶ 003: a network where every node is connected to every other node by two or more links, STP and similar protocols typically may result in an inefficient use of available resources (e.g., available network bandwidth) due to loop preventing blocking.; (available bandwidth))
Grosser does not explicitly disclose the status includes information about traffic congestion in the network.
However, CarvajalRojas discloses wherein the status includes information about traffic congestion in the network, such that the determining the path is based thereon. (CarvajalRojas ¶ 068: To reduce overall latency and to prevent possible congestion (traffic congestion) on the inter-chassis links (e.g., FPS links), when performing load balancing over a LAG, the system takes into consideration the physical locations of the physical links within the LAG. More specifically, the system identifies physical links that are considered local (either with respect to the line card receiving the traffic or with respect to the switch chassis receiving the traffic) and gives preference to the identified local links when performing load balancing.; (path determined using traffic congestion state within the network))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for the status includes information about traffic congestion in the network as taught by CarvajalRojas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of CarvajalRojas for the flexibility of a system that enables multiple environment parameters such as network topology and link status to be determined and utilized in data processing. (CarvajalRojas ¶ 068)
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosser in view of Smith and further in view of Panagiotis et al. (Patent No. WO 2016036305 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Grosser-Smith discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Grosser does not explicitly disclose the apparatus is a Path Computation Element (PCE).
However, Panagiotis discloses wherein the apparatus is a Path Computation Element (PCE). (Panagiotis ¶ 013: a process is implemented by a network device for enabling the provisioning of explicit trees in a network by reporting link aggregation group (LAG) configuration information to a path computation element (PCE)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grosser for the apparatus is a Path Computation Element (PCE) as taught by Panagiotis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the teachings of Panagiotis for the flexibility of a system that enables the utilization of multiple processing environment such as a Path Computation Element (PCE) processing environment. (Panagiotis ¶ 013)
Response to Amendments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks Made in an amendment, filed 4-22-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under Grosser have been fully considered and are persuasive, Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grosser in view of Smith.
A. Applicant argues on page 8 of Remarks: ... (1) determines a path between the access node and other nodes based on network status to perform load distribution and in lieu of using a hashing algorithm in the LAG ... .
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses that network status information is utilized in the determination of a path or a link for communicating network traffic. And, Smith discloses the utilization of layer 2 communication protocol in the communicating of network traffic through the selected communication path or link. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
B. Applicant argues on page 8 of Remarks: ... (2) provides instructions to the access node to forward the new traffic along the determined path using Layer-2 source forwarding ... .
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses the utilization of layer 2 communication protocol in the communicating of network traffic through the selected communication path or link. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
C. Applicant argues on page 9 of Remarks: ... the present claims require determining a path between the access node and other nodes based on network status for the purpose of performing load distribution in lieu of using a hashing algorithm.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses that network status information is utilized in the determination of a path or a link for communicating network traffic. And, Smith discloses the utilization of layer 2 communication protocol in the communicating of network traffic through the selected communication path or link. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
D. Applicant argues on page 9 of Remarks: ... Grosser does not disclose providing instructions to the access node to forward new traffic along the determined path using Layer-2 source forwarding ... .
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses the utilization of layer 2 communication protocol in the communicating of network traffic through the selected communication path or link. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
E. Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks: ... Grosser neither replaces LAG hashing with status-based path selection for load distribution nor provides forwarding instructions to an access node to steer traffic along a selected Layer-2 path,
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses that network status information is utilized in the determination of a path or a link for communicating network traffic. And, Smith discloses the utilization of layer 2 communication protocol in the communicating of network traffic through the selected communication path or link. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
F. Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of Remarks: ... The specification describes that bandwidth utilization information may be communicated and analyzed to assign new flows so as to improve overall load distribution.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith discloses that network status information is utilized in the determination of a path or a link for communicating network traffic. (Smith ¶ 011: an apparatus for determining a path between nodes in a network comprises a link aggregation agent (LAA) communicatively coupled to a path management unit. The LAA is operable to determine a link availability status of each of a first link and a second link included in a link aggregation group (LAG) using a layer-2 protection scheme. The LAG communicatively couples a source node to a destination node. The LAA is further operable to select one of the first and second links for carrying traffic based on the link availability status using the layer-2 protection scheme.; ¶ 031: The various functions and protocols within a network that facilitate the transmission of traffic from one node to another may be logically organized into layers. The protocols and functions used to transmit traffic across a link between adjacent nodes may be referred to as layer-2. Layer-2 may also include protection schemes and protocols that detect errors in communication across a link that may indicate that a link is not available or "down" (e.g., lost, unstable or restricted).; (communication utilizing layer 2 directives, instructions))
And, CarvajalRojas discloses the utilization of status information such as bandwidth information in the determination of communication path. (CarvajalRojas ¶ 049: the load-balancing operation also considers the bandwidth of the physical links. If there are multiple physical links that are local with respect to the line card and these multiple physical links have different bandwidths, the load-balancing operation gives preference to physical links with a larger bandwidth.)
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 Kyung H Shin whose telephone number is (571)272-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 12pm - 8pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/KYUNG H SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
6-17-2026
Prosecution Insights