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
This communication is in response to application filed on 6/3/2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 Korea parent Application No. 10-2024-0189593 on 12/18/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Objection to the Abstract
The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof,
regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains (MPEP 608.01 (b)). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract merely repeats the claim language and does not enable the reader thereof to determine the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The term "pieces" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "pieces" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1: The term "related" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "related" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11: The term "pieces" in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "pieces" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11: The term "related" in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "related" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 9 and 19: The term "sum" in claims 9 and 19 is/are a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term "sum" is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their respective parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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) 1-7, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thubert et al. (US 20220150105 A1) hereinafter “Thubert” in view of Svennebring et al. (US 20220303331 A1) hereinafter “Svennebring”.
As to claim 1, Thubert discloses a processor-implemented method comprising: identifying a characteristic of an application having an execution request (Thubert [22-23], discloses a system selectively notifying nodes in a data center fabric);
obtaining pieces of plane utilization information of each of planes of a multi-plane network, wherein the pieces of plane utilization information of each of the planes correspond to information related to a utilization state of each of the planes (Thubert [23, 31-35]. discloses wherein the techniques may be performed in multi-plane networks in which multiple data planes are usable by the nodes in the network, and wherein the multi-plane network includes multiple devices that utilize the network layer); and
Thubert is silent on switching one or more of the planes to a deactivated state based on either one or both of the identified characteristic and each of the obtained pieces of plane utilization information.
However, Svennebring, discloses a system for performance prediction and media streaming technologies wherein the UEs are capable of measuring various signals or determining/identifying various signal/channel, transmission/reception, and performance characteristics, and activate or deactivate rules/states accordingly (Svennebring [163-164, 302, 344-347]).
Thubert and Svennebring are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of communicating over the network. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Thubert and Svennebring before him or her, to modify the routing scheme in a multiplane topologies system of Thubert to include the media streaming technology of Svennebring with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing acquired/obtained network utilization information to activate or deactivate routing protocol based on the utilization characteristics. This method of improving the routing system of Thubert was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Svennebring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thubert with Svennebring to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether pieces of plane utilization information of each of planes in an activated state are greater than or equal to a first threshold value (Thubert [51-54] discloses wherein the orchestration component can further obtain topology information regarding the fabric, as well as telemetry data indicative of state changes of links and/or nodes in the fabric); and switching a plane in a deactivated state to an activated state in response to plane utilization information of one or more of the planes in the activated state being greater than or equal to the first threshold value (Thubert [85-90], discloses a switching element integrated with an electronic circuit and is capable of maintaining one of two states and can operate based on network environment/threshold values). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 3, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the switching of the one or more of the planes comprises: determining whether the each of the obtained pieces of plane utilization information is less than a second threshold value (Thubert [63-65], discloses iOAM or a similar mechanism, to include control-plane information about the communication path in a data-plane packet); and
switching, to the deactivated state, a plane having plane utilization information that is less than the second threshold value (Thubert [63-65, 75-50], discloses wherein the intermediate nodes, on the communication path of the data packet can identify the control-plane information for that packet and determine which what leaf nodes are communicating in the multi-plane network). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the characteristic comprises a required bandwidth of the application, and the switching of the one or more of the planes comprises switching the one or more of the planes to the deactivated state in response to the required bandwidth being less than a threshold bandwidth (Thubert [31-35], discloses wherein the multi-plane network can provide services and/or computing resources to one or more user networks comprising one or more user devices and servers that provide scalable computing resources and/or host services or applications that the user devices desire to use or interact with, such as web-based applications, services managed by cloud service providers). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the characteristic comprises an amount of network loads of the application, and the switching of the one or more of the planes comprises switching the one or more of the planes to the deactivated state in response to the amount of network loads being less than or equal to an amount of threshold loads (Thubert [37-42, 48-52], discloses wherein ingress leaf nodes use various load balancing techniques in order to send traffic flows through the multi-plane network, Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load balancing, wherein the intermediate node M1 may send a failure advertisement to leaf node 1 and/or other leaf nodes affected by the failure 120 indicating that leaf node 1 is to no longer load balance traffic through plane 1 at least to reach leaf node 5, and to use a different plane). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 6, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting the each of the obtained pieces of plane utilization information to a node in an electronic device (Thubert [62-65], discloses wherein intermediate node identify communication paths between pairs of leaf nodes, and determines when failures have occurred in the network, and sends data-plane notifications to the affected leaf nodes indicating that the failure has occurred). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 7, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the node is configured to select a plane among the planes using each of received pieces of plane utilization information and configured to transmit data to other nodes in the electronic device through the selected plane (Thubert [62-65], discloses wherein intermediate nodes on the communication path of the data packet identify the control-plane information for that packet and determine which what leaf nodes are communicating with each other). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 6 above.
As to claim 11, Thubert discloses an electronic device comprising: one or more processors configured to: identify a characteristic of an application having an execution request (Thubert [22-23], discloses a system selectively notifying nodes in a data center fabric);
obtain pieces of plane utilization information of each of planes of a multi-plane network, wherein the pieces of plane utilization information of each of the planes correspond to information related to a utilization state of each of the planes (Thubert [23, 31-35]. discloses wherein the techniques may be performed in multi-plane networks in which multiple data planes are usable by the nodes in the network, and wherein the multi-plane network includes multiple devices that utilize the network layer); and
Thubert is silent on switch one or more of the planes to a deactivated state based on either one or both of the identified characteristic and each of the obtained pieces of plane utilization information.
However, Svennebring, discloses a system for performance prediction and media streaming technologies wherein the UEs are capable of measuring various signals or determining/identifying various signal/channel, transmission/reception, and performance characteristics, and activate or deactivate rules/states accordingly (Svennebring [163-164, 302, 344-347]).
Thubert and Svennebring are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of communicating over the network. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Thubert and Svennebring before him or her, to modify the routing scheme in a multiplane topologies system of Thubert to include the media streaming technology of Svennebring with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing acquired/obtained network utilization information to activate or deactivate routing protocol based on the utilization characteristics. This method of improving the routing system of Thubert was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Svennebring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thubert with Svennebring to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As to claim 12, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether pieces of plane utilization information of each of planes in an activated state are greater than or equal to a first threshold value (Thubert [51-54] discloses wherein the orchestration component can further obtain topology information regarding the fabric, as well as telemetry data indicative of state changes of links and/or nodes in the fabric); and switch a plane in a deactivated state to an activated state in response to plane utilization information of one or more of the planes in the activated state being greater than or equal to the first threshold value (Thubert [85-90], discloses a switching element integrated with an electronic circuit and is capable of maintaining one of two states and can operate based on network environment/threshold values). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 11 above.
As to claim 13, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein, for the switching of the one or more of the planes, the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether the each of the obtained pieces of plane utilization information is less than a second threshold value (Thubert [63-65], discloses iOAM or a similar mechanism, to include control-plane information about the communication path in a data-plane packet); and switch, to the deactivated state, a plane having plane utilization information that is less than the second threshold value (Thubert [63-65, 75-50], discloses wherein the intermediate nodes, on the communication path of the data packet can identify the control-plane information for that packet and determine which what leaf nodes are communicating in the multi-plane network). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 11 above.
As to claim 14, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the characteristic comprises a required bandwidth of the application, and for the switching of the one or more of the planes, the one or more processors are configured to switch the one or more of the planes to the deactivated state in response to the required bandwidth being less than a threshold bandwidth (Thubert [31-35], discloses wherein the multi-plane network can provide services and/or computing resources to one or more user networks comprising one or more user devices and servers that provide scalable computing resources and/or host services or applications that the user devices desire to use or interact with, such as web-based applications, services managed by cloud service providers). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 11 above.
As to claim 15, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the characteristic comprises an amount of network loads of the application, and for the switching of the one or more of the planes, the one or more processors are configured to switch the one or more of the planes to the deactivated state in response to the amount of network loads being less than or equal to an amount of threshold loads (Thubert [37-42, 48-52], discloses wherein ingress leaf nodes use various load balancing techniques in order to send traffic flows through the multi-plane network, Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load balancing, wherein the intermediate node M1 may send a failure advertisement to leaf node 1 and/or other leaf nodes affected by the failure 120 indicating that leaf node 1 is to no longer load balance traffic through plane 1 at least to reach leaf node 5, and to use a different plane). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 11 above.
As to claim 16, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the each of the obtained pieces of plane utilization information to a node in the electronic device (Thubert [62-65], discloses wherein intermediate node identify communication paths between pairs of leaf nodes, and determines when failures have occurred in the network, and sends data-plane notifications to the affected leaf nodes indicating that the failure has occurred). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 11 above.
As to claim 17, Thubert-Svennebring discloses the electronic device of claim 16, wherein the node is configured to select a plane among the planes using each of received pieces of plane utilization information and transmit data to other nodes in the electronic device through the selected plane (Thubert [62-65], discloses wherein intermediate nodes on the communication path of the data packet identify the control-plane information for that packet and determine which what leaf nodes are communicating with each other). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Thubert and Svennebring as in claim 16 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also requests, in response 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. When responding to this office action, 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 Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights