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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed April 03, 2023 was indeed received and considered at the time. The omission of an annotated copy was made in error and Examiner apologizes. A newly annotated copy is provided herewith. All references have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE claims 1 and 16, in response to applicant's argument that Examiner relies upon “transplanting” Bobrek’s COL and CRS assertion”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to both these arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. Diab itself is cited as disclosing a majority of the features at issue. In the cited disclosure of Diab a carrier sense signal (CRS) is asserted to prevent data loss or corruption caused by the egress queue level of the PHY. Where Diab falls short, is that there simply is no recitation of an additional “collision signal”.
While not directed to explicitly the same overall scenario, the combined collision signal (COL) and carrier sense signal (CRS) approach to cause suppression of data transmission is clearly taught by Bobrek and would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that an existing alternative signaling arrangement is known and would produce a similar result. The use of both signals simply did not rely solely upon Applicants disclosure. Furthermore, the claims merely require that these signals are used to “emulate collision” and are different. The signals as taught by Bobrek meet that function and this two signal method would not require bodily incorporation nor disrupt the functionality of Diab based upon Examiners understanding and interpretation of each.
RE claim 18, Applicants argument is unpersuasive. There is no explicit recitation of the specific signal asserted to “emulate a collision”. The CRS disclosed by Diab meets that function. For this reason, Examiner did not find it necessary to rely on art such as Bobrek to teach a specific type of signal.
Per MPEP 2111.01, the words of the claims must be given their plain meaning consistent with the specification. However, this does not mean Examiner must import limitations into the claims from the specification. The phrase “emulate a collision” has no clear accepted definition in the art. It does not appear in any past or current search results that seek that specific phrase. Thus, Examiner must rely upon the plain meaning and its context in the claim. That the network node asserts or signals that a collision has occurred in some way, in response to the claimed criteria. The CRS, or even the pause frame, of the cited disclosure of Diab anticipates that function although they are differently named. If Applicants wish the claim to explicitly require the COL signal which, based upon at least Bobrek, appears to instead be a specific signal in the art, then it must be explicitly claimed. However, unless otherwise persuaded or rendered moot by further amendment, for the reasons already stated above Examiners position may be that Bobrek would teach that feature if claimed in such a manner.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are respectfully found to be unpersuasive. All previous rejections are maintained as presented below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diab (US 2010/0322105), in view of Gray (US 2001/0038613) in view of Bobrek et al. (US 2010/0262848, Bobrek hereafter).
RE claim 1, Diab discloses an apparatus, comprising: a buffer for a network node, the buffer to receive a transmit packet; and a control circuitry for the network node, the control circuitry to: detect at least one event including at least one of: an amount of data stored by the buffer being at least a threshold amount (Paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 1 discloses two network devices 102 and 104 communicating over a link. “the networking subsystem 108a may communicate data via the interface 114a to the PHY 110a at a higher rate than the line rate, or other specified rate, at which the PHY 110a may operable to output the data onto the link 112. That is, the networking subsystem 108a and the PHY 110a may be mismatched with regard to an egress data rate. Consequently, a queue, such as one or more of the queues 115, that store the egress data may eventually overflow.”), or the received transmit packet being a precision time protocol (PTP) packet that incurs variable delay; and emulate a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal in response to the at least one detected event (Paragraph 28, “Accordingly, the rate at which the PHY 110a is transmitting data and/or an amount of data waiting to be transmitted may be monitored and the PHY 110a may notify the networking subsystem to hold off sending more data to the PHY 110a until the PHY 110a is ready to receive more data without dropping or corrupting any data. In various embodiments of the invention, the PHY 110a may notify the MAC 108a via the CRS 120a and/or by generating one or more pause frames and conveying the pause frames up to the networking subsystem 108a via a receive path of the interface 114a” The CRS is a “carrier sense signal” according to paragraph 23.)
Diab does not explicitly disclose the variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node; and asserting both a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal (CRS) in response to the at least one detected event, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal.
However, Gray teaches variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node (Paragraph 10, packet systems are known in the art to encounter variable delay due to buffers in the network path).
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 apparatus of Diab with the teachings of Gray since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Diab in view of Gray does not explicitly disclose asserting both a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal (CRS) in response to the at least one detected event, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal.
However, Bobrek teaches asserting both a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal (CRS) in response to the at least one detected event, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal (Paragraphs 32-32 a PHY layer suppressing frames from a MAC layer through assertion of both a collision detect (COL) and a carrier sense (CRS) signal. Data is suppressed until both are de-asserted).
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 apparatus of Diab in view of Gray with the teachings of Bobrek since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Dual use of COL and CRS are known in the art to suppress data from MAC to PHY.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 16, Diab discloses a system, comprising: a network node including a physical layer (PHY), the PHY to: detect at least one event including at least one of an amount of data stored in a buffer of the network node being at least a threshold amount (Paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 1 discloses two network devices 102 and 104 communicating over a link. “the networking subsystem 108a may communicate data via the interface 114a to the PHY 110a at a higher rate than the line rate, or other specified rate, at which the PHY 110a may operable to output the data onto the link 112. That is, the networking subsystem 108a and the PHY 110a may be mismatched with regard to an egress data rate. Consequently, a queue, such as one or more of the queues 115, that store the egress data may eventually overflow.”), and a received packet being a precision time protocol (PTP) packet that incurs variable delay; and emulate a collision at the network node in response to the at least one detected event (Paragraph 28, “Accordingly, the rate at which the PHY 110a is transmitting data and/or an amount of data waiting to be transmitted may be monitored and the PHY 110a may notify the networking subsystem to hold off sending more data to the PHY 110a until the PHY 110a is ready to receive more data without dropping or corrupting any data. In various embodiments of the invention, the PHY 110a may notify the MAC 108a via the CRS 120a and/or by generating one or more pause frames and conveying the pause frames up to the networking subsystem 108a via a receive path of the interface 114a” The CRS is a “carrier sense signal” according to paragraph 23.).
Diab does not explicitly disclose the variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node; and asserting both a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal (CRS) in response to the at least one detected event, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal.
However, Gray teaches variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node (Paragraph 10, packet systems are known in the art to encounter variable delay due to buffers in the network path).
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 system of Diab with the teachings of Gray since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Diab in view of Gray does not explicitly disclose asserting both a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal (CRS) in response to the at least one detected event, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal
However, Bobrek teaches asserting both a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal (CRS) in response to the at least one detected event, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal (Paragraphs 32-32 a PHY layer suppressing frames from a MAC layer through assertion of both a collision detect (COL) and a carrier sense (CRS) signal. Data is suppressed until both are de-asserted).
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 system of Diab in view of Gray with the teachings of Bobrek since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Dual use of COL and CRS are known in the art to suppress data from MAC to PHY.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diab in view of in view of Gray.
RE claim 18, Diab discloses a system, comprising: a network node including a physical layer (PHY), the PHY to: detect at least one event including at least one of an amount of data stored in a buffer of the network node being at least a threshold amount (Paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 1 discloses two network devices 102 and 104 communicating over a link. “the networking subsystem 108a may communicate data via the interface 114a to the PHY 110a at a higher rate than the line rate, or other specified rate, at which the PHY 110a may operable to output the data onto the link 112. That is, the networking subsystem 108a and the PHY 110a may be mismatched with regard to an egress data rate. Consequently, a queue, such as one or more of the queues 115, that store the egress data may eventually overflow.”) and a received packet being a precision time protocol (PTP) packet that incurs variable delay; and emulate a collision at the network node in response to the at least one detected event (Paragraph 28, “Accordingly, the rate at which the PHY 110a is transmitting data and/or an amount of data waiting to be transmitted may be monitored and the PHY 110a may notify the networking subsystem to hold off sending more data to the PHY 110a until the PHY 110a is ready to receive more data without dropping or corrupting any data. In various embodiments of the invention, the PHY 110a may notify the MAC 108a via the CRS 120a and/or by generating one or more pause frames and conveying the pause frames up to the networking subsystem 108a via a receive path of the interface 114a” The CRS is a “carrier sense signal” according to paragraph 23.), wherein the received packet is received from a media access control sublayer of the node (Paragraphs 17 and 28, data is passed from the MAC to the PHY and CRS is asserted by the PHY to the MAC per Paragraphs 28-29).
Diab does not explicitly disclose the variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node.
However, Gray teaches variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node (Paragraph 10, packet systems are known in the art to encounter variable delay due to buffers in the network path).
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 system of Diab with the teachings of Gray since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diab in view of in view of Runaldue et al. (US 6,067,408).
RE claim 19, Diab discloses a system, comprising: a network node including a physical layer (PHY), the PHY to: detect at least one event including at least one of an amount of data stored in a buffer of the network node being at least a threshold amount (Paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 1 discloses two network devices 102 and 104 communicating over a link. “the networking subsystem 108a may communicate data via the interface 114a to the PHY 110a at a higher rate than the line rate, or other specified rate, at which the PHY 110a may operable to output the data onto the link 112. That is, the networking subsystem 108a and the PHY 110a may be mismatched with regard to an egress data rate. Consequently, a queue, such as one or more of the queues 115, that store the egress data may eventually overflow.”) and a received packet being a precision time protocol (PTP) packet incurring variable delay; and emulate a collision at the network node in response to the at least one detected event (Paragraph 28, “Accordingly, the rate at which the PHY 110a is transmitting data and/or an amount of data waiting to be transmitted may be monitored and the PHY 110a may notify the networking subsystem to hold off sending more data to the PHY 110a until the PHY 110a is ready to receive more data without dropping or corrupting any data. In various embodiments of the invention, the PHY 110a may notify the MAC 108a via the CRS 120a and/or by generating one or more pause frames and conveying the pause frames up to the networking subsystem 108a via a receive path of the interface 114a” The CRS is a “carrier sense signal” according to paragraph 23.).
Diab does not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold amount is programmable to be less than or equal to one of 49.5 bytes or 64 bytes.
However, Runaldue teaches wherein the threshold amount is programmable to be less than or equal to one of 49.5 bytes or 64 bytes (Column 5, lines 3-12).
However, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Diab with the teachings of Runaldue since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (programmable buffer to discrete thresholds) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diab in view of McCann et al. (US 2019/0342394) and further in view of Gray.
RE claim 20, Diab discloses an apparatus, comprising: a number of network nodes, at least one network node of the number of network nodes to: detect at least one event, the at least one event including at least one of: an amount of data stored in a buffer of the at least one network node being at least a threshold amount; and a transmit packet received at the network node from a link layer of the network node being a precision time protocol (PTP) packet and incurring variable delay (Paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 1 discloses two network devices 102 and 104 communicating over a link. “the networking subsystem 108a may communicate data via the interface 114a to the PHY 110a at a higher rate than the line rate, or other specified rate, at which the PHY 110a may operable to output the data onto the link 112. That is, the networking subsystem 108a and the PHY 110a may be mismatched with regard to an egress data rate. Consequently, a queue, such as one or more of the queues 115, that store the egress data may eventually overflow.”); and emulate a collision at the at least one network node in response to the at least one detected event (Paragraph 28, “Accordingly, the rate at which the PHY 110a is transmitting data and/or an amount of data waiting to be transmitted may be monitored and the PHY 110a may notify the networking subsystem to hold off sending more data to the PHY 110a until the PHY 110a is ready to receive more data without dropping or corrupting any data. In various embodiments of the invention, the PHY 110a may notify the MAC 108a via the CRS 120a and/or by generating one or more pause frames and conveying the pause frames up to the networking subsystem 108a via a receive path of the interface 114a” The CRS is a “carrier sense signal” according to paragraph 23.).
Diab does not explicitly disclose the network nodes are within a vehicle; and the variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node
However, McCann teaches network nodes within a vehicle (Figure 1 and Paragraph 19).
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 apparatus of Diab with the teachings of McCann since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Diab in view McCann does not explicitly disclose the variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node.
However, Gray teaches variable delay being due to buffering at the buffer for the network node (Paragraph 10, packet systems are known in the art to encounter variable delay due to buffers in the network path).
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 apparatus of Diab in view of McCann with the teachings of Gray since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
RE claim 2, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest wherein the control circuitry is to emulate a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal in response to the at least one detected event and pad the PTP packet so as to include at least 64 bytes responsive to a detection that the received transmit packet is the PTP packet received outside of a transmit opportunity of the network node.
RE claim 3, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest emulating a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal in response to the at least one detected event, wherein the control circuitry is to pad the PTP packet to include a pattern to cause an error responsive to a detection that the received transmit packet is the PTP packet received outside of a transmit opportunity of the network node.
RE claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 3 and thereby incorporates the allowable features above.
RE claim 5, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest emulating a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal in response to the at least one detected event, wherein the control circuitry is to add an error delimiter to the PTP packet responsive to a detection that the received transmit is the PTP packet received outside of a transmit opportunity of the network node.
RE claim 6, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest emulating a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal in response to the at least one detected event, wherein responsive to a detection that the received transmit packet is the PTP packet received outside of a transmit opportunity of the network node, the control circuitry is to: pad the PTP packet with a pattern such that the PTP packet includes at least 64 bytes of payload and the pattern causes an error; and add an end-of-stream delimiter to the PTP packet.
RE claim 7, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest emulating a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal in response to the at least one detected event, wherein the control circuitry is to detect a fixed delay incurred by the PTP packet responsive to a transmit enable signal assertion within a transmit opportunity of the network node or responsive to a deassertion of a carrier sense signal after an emulated collision.
RE claim 8, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest a buffer threshold amount being programmable to different values based on transmit opportunities of the network node: and emulating a collision by asserting a collision signal and a carrier-sense signal in response to the amount of data being at least the threshold amount, the collision signal different than the carrier-sense signal.
RE claims 9-11, the claims depend upon claim 8 and thereby incorporate the allowed matter set forth above.
RE claim 12, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest control circuitry configured to: identify the stored transmit packet as a precision time protocol (PTP) packet; and emulate a collision at the network node by asserting a collision signal to the media access control sublayer in response to the stored transmit packet being identified as the PTP packet and the identified PTP packet incurring variable delay.
RE claims 13-15, the claims depend upon claim 12 and thereby incorporate the allowed matter set forth above.
RE claim 17, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest emulating a collision at the network node in response to the at least one detected event. the PHY further configured to: pad the PTP packet with a pattern such that the padded PTP packet includes at least 64 bytes and the pattern causes a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) error; and add an end-of-stream delimiter to the PTP packet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights