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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 202210420944.9, filed on 04/20/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 was filed. The submission 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOOD et al. ( US 20180351855, hereinafter, SOOD’s 855) in view of CHHABBA et al. ( US 20170063672, hereinafter, CHHABBA’s 672).
Regarding to the claim 1, SOOD’s 855 teaches a communication method, comprising:
performing, by a first node (DHD 18) [see Figure 6] , data transmission with a destination node based on a first communication link (first communication link 34 ) [see Figure 6 ] , wherein the first communication link includes a second node (active node
14) (wherein the first communication link 34 includes a second node 14 ) [see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] ;
in association with the first communication link being unavailable (in accordance with the first communication link 34 is failed ) , performing, by the first node, data transmission with the destination node based on a second communication link different from the first communication link (in accordance with the first communication link 34 is failed, data transmission with the destination node based on a second communication link 36 different from the first communication link 34 ) [see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015];
the second communication link includes a third node 16 different from the second node 14 [see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015];
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach the second node and the third node belong to a destination node group.
CHHABBA’s 672, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches the second node (switch A ) and the third node (switch B) belong to a destination node group (the switch A 14a and the switch B 14b belong to Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is configured to establish a communication connection for the first node (the first node from Network 36 ) and the destination node 16 [see Figure 2 and Figure 9 and the Abstract and Paragraphs 0025 & 0026];
A node (switch A 14A and switch 14B) included the destination node group (Link Aggregation Group (LAG)) is configured to establish a communication connection for the first node (the node from the network 36) and the destination node (switch C 16) [see Figure 2 and Figure 9 ] [also see the Abstract and Paragraphs 0025 & 0026].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of SOOD’s 855 in view of CHHABBA’s 672 because CHHABBA’s 672 suggests that there is a need for a solution to the split-brain which is solely implemented between the RG members that are interoperable with any vendor supporting standard LACP on the DHD and which does not increase switchover time.
Regarding to the claim 2, SOOD’s 855 further teaches wherein the first communication link being unavailable is represented by at least one of:
the second node is unavailable (the second node (active node) is unavailable ) [see Figure 6 ] [also see paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015] ;
in the first communication link, a communication sublink between the first node and the second node is unavailable; and
in the first communication link, a communication sublink between the second node and the destination node is unavailable.
Regarding to the claim 6, SOOD’s 855 further teaches wherein a working mode of the destination node group is an active-active mode, and before performing, by the first node, the data transmission with the destination node, the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, second indication information from at least two nodes in the destination node group, wherein the at least two nodes include the second node and the third node; and establishing, by the first node, communication sublinks with the at least two nodes based on the second indication information (wherein a working mode of the destination node group is an active-active mode, and before performing, by the first node, the data transmission with the destination node, the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, second indication information from at least two nodes in the destination node group, wherein the at least two nodes include the second node and the third node; and establishing, by the first node, communication sublinks with the at least two nodes based on the second indication information) [ see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] .
Regarding to the claim 7,SOOD’s 855 further teaches wherein the second indication information from each of the at least two nodes includes a group identifier of the destination node group, and a node identifier of the node [ see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] .
Regarding to the claim 8, SOOD’s 855 further teaches wherein the second indication information is included in a broadcast message or a system message from the node, and the broadcast message or the system message of the node further comprises information of the node including at least one of: a device name, a communication address, an identifier of a supported service capability, or service data information describing the service capability [ see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] .
Regarding to the claim 9, SOOD’s 855 further teaches updating, by the first node, communication link information of the first node based on availability of the communication sublink between the first node and the second node, and availability of the communication sublink between the first node and the third node [ see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] .
Regarding to the claim 12, SOOD’s 855 teaches a communication apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and an interface circuit, wherein the interface circuit is configured to provide data or code instructions for the at least one processor that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the communication apparatus to:
Performing data transmission with a destination node based on a first communication link (first communication link 34 ) [see Figure 6 ] , wherein the first communication link includes a second node (active node
14) (wherein the first communication link 34 includes a second node 14 ) [see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] ;
in association with the first communication link being unavailable (in accordance with the first communication link 34 is failed ) , performing, by the first node, data transmission with the destination node based on a second communication link different from the first communication link (in accordance with the first communication link 34 is failed, data transmission with the destination node based on a second communication link 36 different from the first communication link 34 ) [see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015];
the second communication link includes a third node 16 different from the second node 14 [see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015];
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach the second node and the third node belong to a destination node group.
CHHABBA’s 672, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches the second node (switch A ) and the third node (switch B) belong to a destination node group (the switch A 14a and the switch B 14b belong to Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is configured to establish a communication connection for the first node (the first node from Network 36 ) and the destination node 16 [see Figure 2 and Figure 9 and the Abstract and Paragraphs 0025 & 0026];
A node (switch A 14A and switch 14B) included the destination node group (Link Aggregation Group (LAG)) is configured to establish a communication connection for the first node (the node from the network 36) and the destination node (switch C 16) [see Figure 2 and Figure 9 ] [also see the Abstract and Paragraphs 0025 & 0026].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of SOOD’s 855 in view of CHHABBA’s 672 because CHHABBA’s 672 suggests that there is a need for a solution to the split-brain which is solely implemented between the RG members that are interoperable with any vendor supporting standard LACP on the DHD and which does not increase switchover time.
Regarding to the claim 13, claim 13 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 2, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 17, claim 17 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 6, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 18, claim 18 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 7, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 19, SOOD’s 855 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to provide execution comprising:
Performing data transmission with a destination node based on a first communication link (first communication link 34 ) [see Figure 6 ] , wherein the first communication link includes a second node (active node
14) (wherein the first communication link 34 includes a second node 14 ) [see Figure 6 ] [see Paragraph 0054 ] [ also see the paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015 ] ;
in association with the first communication link being unavailable (in accordance with the first communication link 34 is failed ) , performing, by the first node, data transmission with the destination node based on a second communication link different from the first communication link (in accordance with the first communication link 34 is failed, data transmission with the destination node based on a second communication link 36 different from the first communication link 34 ) [see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015];
the second communication link includes a third node 16 different from the second node 14 [see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0011 & 0013 & 0015];
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach the second node and the third node belong to a destination node group.
CHHABBA’s 672, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches the second node (switch A ) and the third node (switch B) belong to a destination node group (the switch A 14a and the switch B 14b belong to Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is configured to establish a communication connection for the first node (the first node from Network 36 ) and the destination node 16 [see Figure 2 and Figure 9 and the Abstract and Paragraphs 0025 & 0026];
A node (switch A 14A and switch 14B) included the destination node group (Link Aggregation Group (LAG)) is configured to establish a communication connection for the first node (the node from the network 36) and the destination node (switch C 16) [see Figure 2 and Figure 9 ] [also see the Abstract and Paragraphs 0025 & 0026].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of SOOD’s 855 in view of CHHABBA’s 672 because CHHABBA’s 672 suggests that there is a need for a solution to the split-brain which is solely implemented between the RG members that are interoperable with any vendor supporting standard LACP on the DHD and which does not increase switchover time.
Regarding to the claim 20, claim 20 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 2, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOOD et al. ( US 20180351855, hereinafter, SOOD’s 855) in view of CHHABBA et al. ( US 20170063672, hereinafter, CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of ZHAN et al. ( US 20210367808, hereinafter, ZHAN’s 808 ).
Regarding to the claim 3, SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672 teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach wherein a working mode of the destination node group is an active-standby mode, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, first indication information from the third node, wherein the first indication information is used to request switching an active-standby state for the third node; and in association with determining to allow the third node to switch from a standby node to an active node, sending, by the first node, a connection request message to the third node, wherein the connection request message is used to request establishing a communication sublink with the third node, and the second communication link includes the communication sublink between the first node and the third node.
ZHAN’s 808, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein a working mode of the destination node group is an active-standby mode, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, first indication information from the third node, wherein the first indication information is used to request switching an active-standby state for the third node; and in association with determining to allow the third node to switch from a standby node to an active node, sending, by the first node, a connection request message to the third node, wherein the connection request message is used to request establishing a communication sublink with the third node, and the second communication link includes the communication sublink between the first node and the third node [see Paragraphs 0090 & 0091 & 0092] [also see the paragraphs 0118 & 0120 & 0142 & 0144 & 0143 & 0144 & 0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0202].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of ZHAN’s 808 because ZHAN’s 808 suggests that it helps to improve communication reliability of a communication system.
Regarding to the claim 4, SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672 teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach wherein the first indication information includes a group identifier of the destination node group, and a round number of the third node used for active node election.
ZHAN’s 808, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the first indication information includes a group identifier of the destination node group, and a round number of the third node used for active node election [see Paragraphs 0090 & 0091 & 0092] [also see the paragraphs 0118 & 0120 & 0142 & 0144 & 0143 & 0144 & 0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0202].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of ZHAN’s 808 because ZHAN’s 808 suggests that it helps to improve communication reliability of a communication system.
Regarding to the claim 5, SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672 teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach wherein the first indication information is included in a broadcast message or a system message from the third node, and the broadcast message or the system message further comprises information of the third node including at least one of: a device name, a communication address, an identifier of a supported service capability, or service data information describing the service capability.
ZHAN’s 808, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the first indication information is included in a broadcast message or a system message from the third node, and the broadcast message or the system message further comprises information of the third node including at least one of: a device name, a communication address, an identifier of a supported service capability, or service data information describing the service capability [see Paragraphs 0090 & 0091 & 0092] [also see the paragraphs 0118 & 0120 & 0142 & 0144 & 0143 & 0144 & 0162 & 0163 & 0164 & 0202].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of ZHAN’s 808 because ZHAN’s 808 suggests that it helps to improve communication reliability of a communication system.
Regarding to the claim 14, claim 14 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 3, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 15, claim 15 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 4, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 15, claim 15 is rejected in the same ground, or for the same reasons of claim 6, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOOD et al. ( US 20180351855, hereinafter, SOOD’s 855) in view of CHHABBA et al. ( US 20170063672, hereinafter, CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of YOUN et al. ( US 20240015562, hereinafter, YOUN’s 562 ).
Regarding to the claim 10, SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672 teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach wherein the communication sublink between the first node and the second node utilizes a first communication technology, and the first communication technology is a wired communication technology or a first wireless communication technology.
YOUN’s 562, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication sublink between the first node and the second node utilizes a first communication technology, and the first communication technology is a wired communication technology or a first wireless communication technology [see Paragraph 0314].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of YOUN’s 562 because YOUN’s 562 suggests that due to this, there is a problem in that radio resources and computing resources are wasted. In addition, when Packet Loss Ratio (PLR) measurement is performed for multiple QoS flows, there is a problem in that many resources are wasted.
Regarding to the claim 11, SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672 teach the limitations of the claim 10 above.
However, SOOD’s 855 does not explicitly teach wherein the communication sublink between the first node and the third node utilizes a second communication technology, and the second communication technology is a second wireless communication technology different from the first wireless communication technology.
YOUN’s 562, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the communication sublink between the first node and the third node utilizes a second communication technology, and the second communication technology is a second wireless communication technology different from the first wireless communication technology [see Paragraph 0314].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( SOOD’s 855 and CHHABBA’s 672), and further in view of YOUN’s 562 because YOUN’s 562 suggests that due to this, there is a problem in that radio resources and computing resources are wasted. In addition, when Packet Loss Ratio (PLR) measurement is performed for multiple QoS flows, there is a problem in that many resources are wasted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG T HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/CHUONG T HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights