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 .
This Non-Final rejection is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 2/5/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are currently amended. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamichi et al. (US 2005/0188073 A1, hereinafter Nakamichi).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamichi teaches a method, applied to a first network device in a first device cluster, and comprising:
obtaining first traffic information of the first network device, [Abstract describes a client side router collecting server load information, Figure 4 and associated description, Par.[0026] among others];
determining, based on the first traffic information, first load information of the first network device, [Abstract describes a client device collecting server load information; Figure 4 and associated description; Par.[0026] among others]; and
sending, to a second network device in a second network device cluster, the first load information for determining second load information of a path comprising a first subpath, and wherein the first subpath is from the second network device to the first network device, [Abstract describes a client device collecting server load information and individual link load states for a plurality of delivery paths between the client and a server via client side routers/clusters and servicer side routers/clusters; Figure 4 and associated description; Par.[0026] among others; the clause “for determining…” may not have patentable weight because it reads like intended result and recite the limitation directly as a process step for it to have patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.04].
Regarding claim 12, Nakamichi teaches a method, applied to a first network device in a first device cluster and the method comprising:
obtaining a target packet to be sent to a destination device in a second device cluster, [Abstract and Figure 4 and elsewhere, client side routers and server side routers];
determining a target path from a first path and a second path based on first load information of a second network device in the second device cluster and second load information of a third network device in a third network device cluster, wherein the first path is from the first network device to the destination device through the second network device, wherein the second path is from the first network device to the destination device through the third network device, wherein the first load information based on first traffic information of the second network device, and wherein the second load information is based on second traffic information of the third network device, [Abstract and Par.[0026] among others describe evaluating multiple path from a server cluster to a client side router using server load and link loads; second network device and third network devices are routers on the path from the first network device and a destination client]; and
sending the target packet to the destination device through the target path, [Abstract and Par.[0026] among others describe finding a minimum load state delivery path].
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first load information comprises at least one of third load information or fourth load information, wherein the third load information determines fifth load information of a first path, wherein the first path is a shortest path from the second network device to the first network device, wherein the third load information indicates a capability of the first network device to receive and forward a packet to a device in the first device cluster, wherein the fourth load information determines sixth load information of a second path, wherein the second path is from the second network device to a third network device through the first network device, wherein the fourth load information indicates a capability of the first network device to receive and forward a packet to a network device in a third device cluster, and wherein the third network device belongs to the third device cluster, [these convoluted claim limitations have no special significance or meaning; these claim limitations are verbose but simply state the fact pattern of collecting device load information and determining path/link load information and using it for multiple paths; Abstract, Par.[0026]; Par.[0156] for shortest path].
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the first traffic information comprises downlink traffic information of the first network device, and wherein determining the first load information comprises determining the third load information based on the downlink traffic information of the first network device, [Abstract: respective individual link load states for a plurality of delivery paths (includes downlink) and Par.[0033] and Par.[0026] among others and Figure 4 shows determining server load and link load for a particular path].
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the first traffic information comprises uplink traffic information and wherein determining the first load information comprises determining the fourth load information based on the uplink traffic information, [Abstract: respective individual link load states for a plurality of delivery paths (includes uplink) and Par.[0033] and Par.[0026] among others and Figure 4 shows determining server load and link load for a particular path].
Regarding claim 5, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 2, sending the first load information comprises sending a first packet to the second network device, wherein the first packet comprises a payload part carrying the first load information, [Par.[0133] among others describes load information collecting unit deployed in individual routers or elsewhere and implicit in it is the packet payload containing load information which is the data part of the packet unrelated to packet headers in a TCP/IP based network].
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the first packet further comprises first indication information, and wherein the first indication information indicates that the payload part carries the first load information, [it is not clear what this indication information is referring to; Par.[0133] among others describes load information collecting unit deployed in individual routers or elsewhere and implicit in it is the packet payload containing load information which is the data part of the packet unrelated to packet headers in a TCP/IP based network].
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the first packet further comprises a control protocol packet header carrying the first indication information, [Par.[0123] describes RSVP protocol which uses control packets/channel].
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a fourth network device, fourth load information, based on second traffic information of the fourth network device wherein the fourth network device belongs to a fourth device cluster, [these convoluted claim limitations have no special significance or meaning; Abstract describes a client side router collecting server load information, Figure 4 and associated description, Par.[0026] among others].
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.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamichi in view of Ferguson et al. (US 7,468,977 B1, hereinafter Ferguson).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 7, and does not explicitly teach wherein the control protocol packet header comprises a Neighbor Notification Protocol (NNP) packet header, and wherein the NPP packet header comprises a subtype field carrying the first indication information;
Ferguson teaches wherein the control protocol packet header comprises a Neighbor Notification Protocol (NNP) packet header, and wherein the NPP packet header comprises a subtype field carrying the first indication information, [Col. 6, lines 46-55 describes NNP and control headers are implicit; NNP is a well-known protocol from the early 90s]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide neighbor related information such as address or other data like the load information to propagate through the networks, [Ferguson: Col. 6, lines 46-55].
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected as above.
Claims 9, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamichi in view of Nakamichi et al. (US 2002/0085498 A1, hereinafter Nakamichi2).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamichi teaches the method according to claim 7, and does not explicitly teach wherein the first packet further comprises a link-layer packet header, wherein the link-layer packet header carries second indication information, and wherein the second indication information indicates that the first packet comprises the control protocol packet header, [these cryptic claim limitations without indicating a protocol or what the terms like indication information are referring to have no special significance or meaning; any packet has many different headers and many different fields and types];
Nakamichi2 teaches wherein the first packet further comprises a link-layer packet header, wherein the link-layer packet header carries second indication information, and wherein the second indication information indicates that the first packet comprises the control protocol packet header, [Abstract describes receiving traffic information from other nodes; see Par.[0050] for LSA]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation/suggestion would have been to exchange link state among neighbor nodes, [Nakamichi2: Abstract].
Regarding claim 10, Nakamichi and Nakamichi2 disclose the method according to claim 9, and Nakamichi2 teaches wherein the link-layer packet header further comprises a protocol field carrying the second indication information, [dependent claim is obvious over Nakamichi in view of Nakamichi2 as above; Abstract and Par.[0050]].
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected as above.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner suggests crafting claims without the overuse of claim terms like first, second, third, fourth, fifth …and so on, instead clearly reciting a topology of the information flow with the network entities involved and characterize the information exchanged using named protocols. Convoluted, verbose, and cryptic claim limitations render no special significance or meaning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at 571 272 3889. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights