DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. 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. CN202210430611.4, filed on 04/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 01/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Internet Communication Authorization
The examiner recommends filling a written authorization for internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with applicant using internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
Claim Objections
Claims, 1, 11 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims recite “non-shortest path comprise the shortest path” and shortest path comprise one inter-group path of the at least two inter-group paths”. This language is inconsistent on its face creating an ambiguity in scope of the claims giving rise to range of interpretations and therefore is indefinite. The limitation “wherein the non-shortest path comprises the shortest path” renders the scope unclear because a path characterized as a non-shortest would not be reasonably include the shortest path. The relationship between these paths in ambiguous and the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al (US pub, 20120144064 A1) in view of Du et al (US pub, 20220124027 A1)
Referring to claim 1, Parker teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a first network device, a non-shortest path for sending a first packet (see ¶ [106], Parker teaches adaptive routing selecting non-minimal paths = non shortest based on congestion – Also see [109]), wherein the non-shortest path comprises at least two inter-group paths (see ¶ [111], non-minimal routing via an intermediate group, producing two global hops),
a second network device, and the first network device, and wherein the first network device and the second network device belong to different groups (Parker: ¶[101]-[103], dragonfly topology defines router groups and inter-group links);
sending, by the first network device, the first packet to the second network device (see Parker ¶ [100], dragonfly topology defines router groups and inter-group links where data packets are sent across the network to second network device); and
wherein the non-shortest path comprises the shortest path (Parker: [107], [110], [111], [112], [115], Minimal routing in dragonfly where Minimal path = single global hop, Non-minimal = intermediate + destination global hop → includes minimal segment) and
wherein the shortest path comprises one inter-group path of the at least two inter-group paths (Parker: [107], [107], [110], [111], [112], [115] Minimal path uses one global hop),
wherein the non-shortest path comprises the shortest path (Parker: [107], [107], [110], [111], [112], [115] Minimal path = single global hop Non-minimal = intermediate + destination global hop → includes minimal segment) and
Parker teaches routing mode (minimal vs non-minimal) that are determined using routing control field in the packet header using progressive adaptive routing but expressly lacks instructing the second network device to send the first packet based on a shortest path
However, Du an analogous art in the relevant field of endeavor teaches forwarding path behavior can be encoded in packet segment identifiers that cause downstream nodes to forward according to an inserted forwarded directive. Furthermore, Du teaches instructing the second network device to send the first packet based on a shortest path (Du: ¶ [088]-[089], second network device replaces the segment identifier in the segment identifier list with a segment identifier list corresponding to the first forwarding path, to generate a second packet, and forwards the second packet along the first forwarding path)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify Parkers dragonfly adaptive routing system to encode routing mode or path selection information into packet-carried forwarding instructions as taught by Du as a predictable improvement to encode Parkers routing mode decisions into packet-carried instructions so downstream routers follow selected routing behavior without recomputing routing mode independently, thereby improving routing control decisions.
Referring to claim 2, Du teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising setting, by the first network device, shortest path information in a second packet, wherein the shortest path information instructs the second network device to send, based on the shortest path, the second packet (see Du ¶[109]-[112], SID carried and used for forwarding), and wherein sending the first packet to the second network device comprises sending, by the first network device to the second network device, the second packet (see ¶ [101], packet carries segment identifier used for forwarding ¶ [106], downstream node replaces SID with SID list of forwarding paths ¶ [107] forwarding based on SID list in packet header).
Referring to claim 3, Parker teaches the method of claim 2, wherein obtaining the non-shortest path for sending the first packet comprises obtaining, by the first network device based on non-shortest path information set in the first packet, the non-shortest path for sending the first packet (see Parker ¶ [106], packets may be routed using non-minimal routing [112], routing type determined from routing control field in header).
Referring to claim 4, Du teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the first packet to the second network device comprises sending, by the first network device, the first packet to the second network device through a first interface corresponding to the shortest path (see [118], determine outgoing interface corresponding to first forwarding path [120], mapping between forwarding path & outgoing interface).
Referring to claim 5, Parker teaches the method of claim 4, wherein obtaining the non-shortest path for sending the first packet comprises: receiving, by the first network device, the first packet through a second interface corresponding to the non-shortest path ([098], router input port receives packet and processes routing); and
determining the non-shortest path for sending the first packet (see ¶ [106], non-minimal routing selection ¶ [109] adaptive routing based on congestion state).
Referring to claim 6, Parker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second network device is a next-hop device of the first network device on the non-shortest path (Parker¶[106], Non-minimal routing proceeds hop by hop through intermediate routers [110], routing via intermediate node/group).
Referring to claim 7, Parker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first network device sends the first packet to the second network device via a third network device, wherein the third network device and the first network device belong to a same group, and wherein the third network device is on the non-shortest path ([072], Dragonfly group structure routing includes intra-group intermediate routing prior to inter-group hop, [110], [114]).
Referring to claim 8, Parker and Du teaches the method of claim 1, wherein before obtaining the non-shortest path for sending the first packet, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first network device, a route advertisement message from the second network device, wherein the route advertisement message comprises an address of a destination device of the first packet, a path cost value from the first network device to the destination device via the second network device, and a next-hop address for sending the first packet by the first network device to the destination device (Du teaches route/link state advertisement carrying reachability + SID, see ¶[094] link state packet message carries segment identifier, ¶[095], segment identifier in extended IP reachability field ¶[096]); and
determining, by the first network device based on the path cost value, that a path from the first network device to the destination device is the non-shortest path, wherein the path cost value of the one inter-group path is greater than a sum of path cost values of all intra-group paths in a same group (see ¶ [106], ¶[109], Parker teaches routings decisions based on path metrics /congestion).
Referring to claim 9, Du teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the shortest path information is set in an Internet Protocol (IP) header or a tunnel header in the second packet (Du: [132], SID and performance path requirement carried in SRv6 header or SRH TLV field, Also see [133]).
Referring to claim 10, Parker teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is applied to a dragonfly network or a dragonfly+ network (see ¶ [003], dragonfly topology routing [072], dragonfly group/inter-group structure [075] dragonfly routing model).
Referring to claim 11, Parker teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a second network device, a packet from a first network device based on a non-shortest path (see Parker: teaches receipt of packets at an intermediate router that arrive via a traffic-engineered or policy-selected path that may differ from the IGP shortest path - ¶¶[045]-[049], [062]-[066] TE/Policy forwarding where packets follow non-shortest engineered paths and are received by downstream nodes);
determining, by the second network device based on an instruction of the first network device to send the packet based on a shortest path (see Parker [058]-[063], [071]-[076], Path instruction via labels/Path state, i.e. parker teaches path directives can be encoded in packet headers or labels and interpreted by downstream nodes to determine forwarding behavior)
sending, by the second network device, the packet based on the instruction and the shortest path (see Parker ¶ [100], dragonfly topology defines router groups and inter-group links where data packets are sent across the network to second network device).
Parker teaches routing mode (minimal vs non-minimal) that are determined using routing control field in the packet header using progressive adaptive routing but expressly lacks wherein the non-shortest path comprises at least two inter-group paths, wherein the second network device and the first network device belong to different groups
However, Du an analogous art in the relevant field of endeavor teaches forwarding path behavior can be encoded in packet segment identifiers that cause downstream nodes to forward according to an inserted forwarded directive. Furthermore, Du teaches wherein the non-shortest path comprises at least two inter-group paths, wherein the second network device and the first network device belong to different groups (Du: [022]-[030], [060]-[068], [201]-209] Inter-Domain / Inter-group forwarding where a packet travels across multiple domains/groups and uses cross-domain path segments), and
Du teaches wherein the shortest path comprises one inter-group path of the at least two inter-group paths (see Du ¶ [118]-[126], [206]-[214], Du teaches that after cross-domain ingress, the receiving domain node forwards using its locally computed shortest/optimal path segment inside its domain); and
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify Parkers dragonfly adaptive routing system to encode routing mode or path selection information into packet-carried forwarding instructions as taught by Du as a predictable improvement to encode Parkers routing mode decisions into packet-carried instructions so downstream routers follow selected routing behavior without recomputing routing mode independently, thereby improving routing control decisions.
Referring to claim 12, Du teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining to send the packet based on the shortest path comprises determining, by the second network device based on shortest path information set in the packet, to send the packet based on the shortest path, wherein the shortest path information instructs the second network device to send the packet based on the shortest path (Du teaches packet carries segment identifier /SID instruction that downstream device reads and uses to determine forwarding path and forwarding behavior see ¶ [101], [106], [107], [132], [133]).
Referring to claim 13, Du teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining to send the packet based on the shortest path comprises: receiving, by the second network device through a first interface corresponding to the shortest path, the packet from the first network device (see ¶ [120], mapping between forwarding path and outgoing interface); and determining to send the packet based on the shortest path (see ¶ [118], determine outgoing interface for forwarding path – [124]).
Referring to claim 14, Parker teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the second network device is a next-hop device of the first network device on the non-shortest path (Parker teaches non-minimal (non-shortest) routing via intermediate routers acting as next hops see ¶[106], [110], [114]).
Referring to claim 15, Du teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining to send the packet based on the shortest path comprises determining, by the second network device based on a second notification that is from a third network device and that is about sending the packet based on the shortest path, to send the packet based on the shortest path, wherein the third network device and the first network device belong to a same group, and wherein the third network device is on the non-shortest path (Du teaches Control Plane Signaling, segment identifier advertisements and cross-device SID function announcement [094], [095], [096]).
Referring to claim 16, The method of claim 11, wherein before receiving the packet from the first network device based on the non-shortest path, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the second network device, a route advertisement message from a fourth network device, wherein the route advertisement message comprises an address of a destination device of the packet, a path cost value from the second network device to the destination device via the fourth network device, and a next-hop address for sending the packet by the second network device to the destination device (Du teaches route/link state advertisement carrying reachability + SID, see ¶[094] link state packet message carries segment identifier, ¶[095], segment identifier in extended IP reachability field ¶[096]); and
determining, by the second network device based on the path cost value, that a path from the second network device to the destination device is the shortest path, wherein the path cost value of the one inter-group path is greater than a sum of path cost values of all intra-group paths in a same group (see ¶ [106], ¶[109], Parker teaches routings decisions based on path metrics /congestion).
Referring to claim 17, Parker teaches a first network device, comprising:
a processor (see Parker ¶[009], Processor) configured to obtain a non-shortest path for sending a first packet ([106], Parker teaches adaptive routing selecting non-minimal paths = non shortest based on congestion – Also see [109]), wherein the non-shortest path comprises at least two inter-group paths (see ¶ [111], non-minimal routing via an intermediate group, producing two global hops),
a second network device, and the first network device, and wherein the first network device and the second network device belong to different groups (Parker: ¶[101]-[103], dragonfly topology defines router groups and inter-group links); and
a transmitter [116], configured to: send the first packet to the second network device (see Parker ¶ [100], dragonfly topology defines router groups and inter-group links where data packets are sent across the network to second network device);
and
wherein the non-shortest path comprises the shortest path (Parker: [107], [110], [111], [112], [115], Minimal routing in dragonfly where Minimal path = single global hop, Non-minimal = intermediate + destination global hop → includes minimal segment), and wherein the shortest path comprises one inter-group path of the at least two inter-group paths (Parker: [107], [107], [110], [111], [112], [115] Minimal path uses one global hop).
Parker teaches routing mode (minimal vs non-minimal) that are determined using routing control field in the packet header using progressive adaptive routing but expressly lacks instruct the second network device to send the first packet based on a shortest path.
However, Du an analogous art in the relevant field of endeavor teaches forwarding path behavior can be encoded in packet segment identifiers that cause downstream nodes to forward according to an inserted forwarded directive. Furthermore, Du teaches instruct the second network device to send the first packet based on a shortest path (Du: ¶ [088]-[089], Du: packet carries SID instruction → downstream node replaces SID with forwarding path list and forwards accordingly)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify Parkers dragonfly adaptive routing system to encode routing mode or path selection information into packet-carried forwarding instructions as taught by Du as a predictable improvement to encode Parkers routing mode decisions into packet-carried instructions so downstream routers follow selected routing behavior without recomputing routing mode independently, thereby improving routing control decisions.
Referring to claim 18, Du teaches the first network device of claim 17, wherein the transmitter is configured to: set shortest path information in a second packet, wherein the shortest path information instructs the second network device to send, based on the shortest path, the second packet; and send, to the second network device, the second packet (Du teaches upstream node inserts SID/path instruction into packet before sending….see ¶ [101], [103], [104], [132]).
Referring to claim 19, Parker teaches the first network device of claim 18, wherein the processor is configured to obtain, based on non-shortest path information set in the second packet, the non-shortest path for sending the second packet (Parker teaches routing mode determined from packet header routing control field, see ¶ [112], [106], [109]).
Referring to claim 20, Du teaches the first network device of claim 17, wherein the transmitter is configured to send the first packet to the second network device through a first interface corresponding to the shortest path (Du teaches forward path mapped to outgoing interface, see ¶ [118], determine outgoing interface, [120], mapping to forwarding interface)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant prior art can be found in the included form PTO-892 (Notice of Cited References).
The examiner also requests, when responding to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFTAB N. KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/AFTAB N. KHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454