DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment for Application Number 19435233 received on 2/04/2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are presented for examination.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “wherein the VRF is the is a subfield”, which includes a minor typographical error. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite “wherein the VRF
Claim 16 recites the limitation, “HLID” without specifying the meaning of the acronym. It is suggested that the claim be amended to include, in the preceding limitation, “a hierarchical LID definition (HLID)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 6, 10, 15-17, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 6 and 15-16 recite the limitation, “a LID definition”, and claims 6, 10, 17 and 20 also recite “LID”, all of which contain an acronym that is not defined by the claims, and as such, the limitation is unclear as to its meaning. The specification does not appear to contain a specific definition for “LID”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the LID definition " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear that claim 6 may have been intended to depend from claim 4, which introduces “a LID definition” in the last line of the claim. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 4.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the LID definition " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear that claim 16 may have been intended to depend from claim 15, which introduces “a LID definition” in the last line of the claim. For examination purposes, claim 16 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " the LID definition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear that claim 17 may have been intended to depend from claim 15, which introduces “a LID definition” in the last line of the claim. For examination purposes, claim 17 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 15.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 20220360525).
Regarding claim 1, Hu disclosed a method of routing with virtual routing fields in a high-performance computing system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a switch (Hu, [0104], the network devices “may be switches”), a packet for transmission (Hu, [0088], Hu disclosed an intermediate node receiving a packet for transmission, from a head node), the packet including a destination local ID (‘DLID’) (Hu, [0088], Hu disclosed the packet including a destination address, DA) and a virtual routing field (‘VRF) (Hu, [0090] Hu disclosed the packet may include an extension header that “specifies an IPv6 path and stores a plurality of SIDs of IPv6”, and the multiple SID lists may include, for example, a primary SID list and a secondary SID list as well as “another SID list”; The SIDs amount to claimed VRFs as they are segment identifiers of nodes in the network; See [0007]);
augmenting, by the switch in dependence upon the VRF, the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm (Hu, [0118], Hu disclosed primary SID list and secondary SID list, and “when the primary forwarding path indicated by the primary SID list is faulty, the packet may be sent based on the secondary forwarding path indicated by the secondary SID list”; [0257], “When a plurality of secondary SID lists in the at least one secondary SID list of the first packet are backups of the primary SID list, the network device may determine, in a random manner, a hash manner, or a manner of specifying a selection sequence for the plurality of secondary SID lists, which secondary SID list is used as the first secondary SID list”; Hu also disclosed in [0257], “when the SID in the primary SID list is unavailable, the first packet is processed based on the 1st SID in the secondary SID list.”; The switch therefore augments the routing of the packet in accordance with the VRFs in the packet, according to a particular routing algorithm; [0258] Hu disclosed using the secondary SID list to process the packet avoids delay in transmitting the packet).
Claim 12 recites a switch comprising a plurality of ports, a management processor, and a switch core configured to perform limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1. Hu disclosed a switch as claimed (Hu, [0104], Hu disclosed the network devices of Figure 1 may be switches, and as shown by Figure 1, each switch has plural ports; [0347]-[0350] processing apparatus includes a processor and receiving and sending units).
Claim 12 is therefore rejected under the same rationale applied above.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Hu disclosed the method of claim 1 wherein the switch supports a plurality of routing algorithms and wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm includes augmenting the routing according to each of the plurality of routing algorithms (Hu, [0143], Hu disclosed the utilization of either SRv6 or MPLS; Additionally, [0104]-[0108] Hu disclosed additional routing algorithms, such as filtering).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Hu disclosed the method of claim 1 wherein the packet includes a plurality of VRFs and augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm includes augmenting the routing of the packet in dependence upon the plurality of VRFs (Hu, [0090] Hu disclosed the packet may include multiple SID lists, such as a primary SID list and a secondary SID list as well as “another SID list”; The SIDs amount to claimed VRFs as they are segment identifiers of nodes in the network; See [0007], [0257], “When a plurality of secondary SID lists in the at least one secondary SID list of the first packet are backups of the primary SID list, the network device may determine, in a random manner, a hash manner, or a manner of specifying a selection sequence for the plurality of secondary SID lists, which secondary SID list is used as the first secondary SID list”; Hu also disclosed in [0257], “when the SID in the primary SID list is unavailable, the first packet is processed based on the 1st SID in the secondary SID list.”; The switch therefore augments the routing of the packet in accordance with the VRFs in the packet, according to a particular routing algorithm; [0258] Hu disclosed using the secondary SID list to process the packet avoids delay in transmitting the packet).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Hu and Fang disclosed the method of claim 4 [1] wherein the LID definition includes a linear LID definition (Hu, Fig. 4, [0181]).
Regarding claim 7, Hu disclosed the method of claim 1 wherein the VRF restricts traffic to a subset of global links (Hu, [0089]-[0090], Hu disclosed the SID lists, and the network device performing the processing is only to perform processing based on the SID lists, and therefore is restricted to using only the links represented by the SIDs of the SID lists to the particular network devices; See [0007]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF defines a plane of switches to the destination (Hu, [0089]-[0090], Hu disclosed the SID lists; [0007] in which SIDs represent network devices, which Hu disclosed as switches in [0104]; Therefore a SID list represents a plane of switches to the destination).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hu disclosed the method of claim 1 further comprising receiving, from a fabric manager, one or more VRFs (Hu, [0128]-[0129], Hu disclosed control device providing SID lists; [0384] “switch fabric”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hu disclosed the method of claim 1 wherein the VRF is the is a subfield of a hierarchical LID definition and wherein the hierarchical LID definition includes a pipeline designation (Hu, Fig. 6, Segment lists 0 through n; Each SID list includes ordered segment identifiers representing a path through the network).
Regarding claim 11, Hu disclosed the method of claim 1 wherein the VRF and the DLID reside in different fields of the packet (Fig. 6, [0088] IPv6 packet includes an IPv6 standard header, extension headers and a payload; Hu disclosed the an SRH extension header added which specifies the SIDs; The fixed header of an IPv6 packet has a 128-bit Destination Address which is separate from the extension headers; See [0109] explicitly reciting the DA being in the IPv6 header, and therefore a separate field from the field(s) of the extension header).
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) 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20220360525) in view of Fang et al. (US 20240348546).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Hu disclosed the method/switch of claim 1/12 but did not explicitly disclose wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm in dependence upon the VRF further comprises passing a LID definition through a mask.
In an analogous art, Fang disclosed wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm further comprises passing a LID definition through a mask (Fang, [0097] and [0159]-[0160], Fang disclosed forwarding behavior for SRv6 packets corresponding to a destination address and a mask which indicates the policy, to determine that the routing entry corresponding to the packet is an entry in which the address and the mask are located).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hu and Fang as they both disclosed teachings with respect to SRv6 and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of the forwarding behavior of Fang within the teachings of Hu in order to apply the mask to the packets including the VRFs/SIDs of Hu in order to facilitated routing by determining appropriate routing policies for further processing of the packet, thereby making the system more desirable to use.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim1-4 and 6-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12542738. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain each and every limitation of the instant application claims, as shown by the table below:
Instant Application 19435233
US Patent 12542738
1. A method of routing with virtual routing fields in a high-performance computing system, the method comprising: receiving, by a switch, a packet for transmission, the packet including a destination local ID ('DLID') and a virtual routing field ('VRF); augmenting, by the switch in dependence upon the VRF, the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the switch supports a plurality of routing algorithms and wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm includes augmenting the routing according to each of the plurality of routing algorithms.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the packet includes a plurality of VRFs and augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm includes augmenting the routing of the packet in dependence upon the plurality of VRFs.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm in dependence upon the VRF further comprises passing a LID definition through a mask.
5. (Cancelled)
6. The method of claim 1 wherein the LID definition includes a linear LID definition.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF restricts traffic to a subset of global links.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF defines a plane of switches to the destination.
9. The method of claim 1 further comprising receiving, from a fabric manager, one or more VRFs.
10. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF is the is a subfield of a hierarchical LID definition and wherein the hierarchical LID definition includes a pipeline designation.
11. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF and the DLID reside in different fields of the packet.
12. A switch comprising: a plurality of ports; a management processor; and a switch core configured to receive a packet for transmission including a destination local ID ('DLID') and a virtual routing field ('VRF) and configured to augment the routing of the packet on a route to a DLID according to a particular routing algorithm in dependence upon the VRF.
13. The switch of claim 12 wherein the switch supports a plurality of routing algorithms and wherein the switch core is further configured to augment the routing according to each of the plurality of routing algorithms.
14. The switch of claim 12 wherein the packet includes a plurality of VRFs, and the switch core is configured to augment the routing of the packet in dependence upon the plurality of VRFs.
15. The switch of claim 12 wherein the switch core is configured to pass a LID definition through a mask.
16. The switch of claim 12 wherein the LID definition includes a hierarchical LID definition and the VRF resides to the hierarchical LID definition and wherein the switch core is configured to pass the HLID including the VRF through a ternary mask whose value enables the VRF.
17. The switch of claim 12 wherein the LID definition includes a linear LID definition.
18. The switch of claim 12 wherein the VRF defines a plane of switches to the destination.
19. The switch of claim 12 further comprising receiving, by the management processor from a fabric manager, one or more VRFs.
20. The switch of claim 12 wherein the VRF is a subfield of a hierarchical LID definition and wherein the hierarchical LID definition includes a pipeline designation.
1. A method of routing with virtual routing fields in a high-performance computing system, the method comprising: receiving, by a switch, a packet for transmission, the packet including a destination local ID (‘DLID’) and a virtual routing field (‘VRF’); augmenting, by the switch in dependence upon the VRF, the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm; wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on the route to the DLID according to the particular routing algorithm in dependence upon the VRF further comprises passing a local ID (‘LID’) definition through a mask; and wherein the LID definition includes a hierarchical LID definition and the VRF resides in the hierarchical LID definition and wherein the switch core is configured to pass the HLID including the VRF through a ternary mask whose value enables the VRF.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the switch supports a plurality of routing algorithms and wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular 2routing algorithm includes augmenting the routing according to each of the plurality of routing algorithms.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the packet includes a plurality of VRFs and augmenting the routing of the packet on a route to the DLID according to a particular routing algorithm includes augmenting the routing of the packet in dependence upon the plurality of VRFs.
[See claim 1 above]
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the LID definition includes a linear LID definition.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF restricts traffic to a subset of global links.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF defines a plane of switches to the destination.
7. The method of claim 1 further comprising receiving, from a fabric manager, one or more VRFs.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF is the is a subfield of a hierarchical LID definition and wherein the hierarchical LID definition includes a pipeline designation.
9. The method of claim 1 wherein the VRF and the DLID reside in different fields of the packet.
10. A switch comprising: a plurality of ports; a management processor; and a switch core configured to receive a packet for transmission including a destination local ID (‘DLID’) and a virtual routing field (‘VRF) and configured to augment the routing of the packet on a route to a DLID according to a particular routing algorithm in dependence upon the VRF; wherein augmenting the routing of the packet on the route to the DLID according to the particular routing algorithm in dependence upon the VRF further comprises passing a local ID (‘LID’) definition through a mask; and wherein the LID definition includes a hierarchical LID (‘HLID’) definition and the VRF resides in the HLID definition and wherein the switch core is configured to pass the HLID definition including the VRF through a ternary mask whose value enables the VRF.
11. The switch of claim 10 wherein the switch supports a plurality of routing algorithms and wherein the switch core is further configured to augment the routing according to each of the plurality of routing algorithms.
12. The switch of claim 10 wherein the packet includes a plurality of VRFs, and the switch core is configured to augment the routing of the packet in dependence upon the plurality of VRFs.
[See claim 10 above]
[See claim 10 above]
13. The switch of claim 10 wherein the LID definition includes a linear LID definition.
14. The switch of claim 10 wherein the VRF defines a plane of switches to the destination.
15. The switch of claim 10 further comprising receiving, by the management processor from a fabric manager, one or more VRFs.
16. The switch of claim 10 wherein the VRF is a subfield of a hierarchical LID definition and wherein the hierarchical LID definition includes a pipeline designation.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated herein, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Pending correction to all rejections and claim objections above, claim 16 would be 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 16, Hu disclosed the switch of claim 12 wherein the LID definition includes a hierarchical LID definition and the VRF resides to the hierarchical LID definition (Hu, Fig. 4, [0181], SID lists are lists of segment identifiers representing a path in the network, and therefore the SID list amounts to a hierarchical LID definition).
Additionally, Fang disclosed forwarding behavior for SRv6 packets corresponding to a destination address and a mask which indicates the policy, to determine that the routing entry corresponding to the packet is an entry in which the address and the mask are located; See [0159], “the routing entry may include: a destination address, a mask, and a forwarding behavior of the packet, and the intermediate node may query a routing table (including at least one routing entry) based on the destination address and the mask of the IPv6 packet, to obtain the routing entry corresponding to the IPv6 packet. The forwarding behavior in the routing entry corresponding to the IPv6 packet may include information indicating the first policy (for example, directly or indirectly indicating the first policy), and the intermediate node may determine the first policy based on the information” (Fang, [0097], [0160]).
While the combined teachings disclosed forwarding behavior for SRv6 packets corresponding to a destination address and a mask which indicates the policy, to determine that the routing entry corresponding to the packet, the combination did not explicitly disclose wherein the switch core is configured to pass the HLID including the VRF through a ternary mask whose value enables the VRF.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ren et al. (US 20240171511) disclosed segment routing over IPv6 utilizing segment lists in packets including an explicit candidate path and a dynamic candidate path (Ren, [0256]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights