DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 July 2025 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 have been amended. Claims 2, 7, and 10 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 14-20 were previously withdrawn from further consideration as drawn to a nonelected species. Claims 1, 2-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 are currently under examination in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not fully comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that the amended claims must include markings indicating the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In particular, at least Claim 1 appears to include text which has been added but which is not marked with underlining as required. In order to advance prosecution and as a courtesy, the amendments have been treated as though they were fully compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c). However, Applicant is reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 2 is moot in light of the cancellation of the claim.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 6, in the phrase “a corresponding a media access control”, the second instance of “a” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the independent claims positively reciting controlling the flow of packets, which constitutes a practical application of the abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong Two (or the rejection is moot in light of the cancellation of the claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to the claims limiting the claims to TCAM (or the cancellation of the claims). The rejection of Claims 2, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is moot in light of the cancellation of the claims. The rejection of Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “associating with each MAC address one of the ACL identifiers” in line 8. First, there is not clear antecedent basis for “each MAC address” as the claim only recited a corresponding MAC address in lines 6-7, and it is not clear if there is more than one. Further, with respect to the phrase “one of the ACL identifiers”, it is not clear whether one ACL identifier is associated with all the MAC addresses or if there is a one-to-one correspondence of ACL identifiers to MAC addresses. The claim further recites “each ACL entry comprises one of the ACLs” in line 11. It is not clear whether each ACL entry includes the same ACL or a respective ACL. The claim further recites “the packet” in lines 14 and 15 and “the received packet” in line 22. It is not clear to which of the plural packets received in line 3 these limitations are intended to refer. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “wherein associating the ACL identifier with the MAC address of the first host in the first memory comprises…” in lines 1-2 and “determining the ACL identifier” in lines 3-4. However, there is no longer antecedent basis for these steps of associating and determining as recited because the previously recited corresponding steps in Claim 1 have been amended. Further, because Claim 1 recites plural ACL identifiers, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the ACL identifier”.
Claim 4 recites “an ACL Class Identifier”. This term does not appear to be well-defined in the claims or specification as to what the various classes of ACL might constitute.
Claim 5 recites “determining the ACL is to be applied to packets received from a second host” in line 2. It is not clear whether the phrase “determining the ACL is to be applied” is intended to mean “determining that the [same] ACL is to be applied”, “determining whether the [same] ACL is to be applied”, or “determining which ACL is to be applied” (or alternately, “determining the ACL to be applied”). Further, there is not clear antecedent basis for “the ACL” because Claim 1 now recites plural ACLs. Claim 5 further recites “the ACL identifier” in lines 4, 5, 10-11, and 12; “the determined ACL” in line 4 and “the ACL” in lines 13-16. Similarly, the antecedent basis for these limitations are unclear because there are plural ACLs and ACL identifiers recited in Claim 1. Claim 5 additionally recites “the first memory at the network device” in lines 5-6. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim also recites “the action” in line 15. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same action as in Claim 1 or a distinct action. Claim 5 further recites applying the ACL “when the packet received from the second host matches the ACL” in lines 16-17. However, the claim provides no action to be taken when the packet does not match the ACL, which amounts to a gap in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the host” in line 13. However, the claim previously recited one or more hosts, and it is not clear to which of the plural hosts this limitation is intended to refer. The claim also recites controlling the flow of the received packet according to a first ACL “when the received packet matches the first ACL” in lines 20-22 and similarly recites controlling the flow according to the second ACL “when the received packet matches the second ACL” in lines 27-29. However, the claim provides no action to be taken when the packet does not match the first or second ACL, which amounts to a gap in the claim. The claim further recites “the ACL identifier” in lines 23 and 25-26. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the ACL identifier of the second ACL recited in line 7 or the default ACL identifier in line 18. The claim additionally recites “performing the lookup” in line 25. However, it appears that this is not the same lookup as performed in line 17, and therefore, these steps should refer to distinct lookups. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “wherein: creating a per-host ACL entry comprises… and creating the port ACL entry comprises”. However, there is not clear antecedent basis for these steps. Although Claim 8 recites such steps, Claim 11 has been amended to no longer depend, directly or indirectly, from Claim 8. Similarly, Claim 11 recites “the port ACL entry” in line 4, “the port identifier” in line 5, and “the default ACL identifier” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Although Claim 8 recites such elements, Claim 11 no longer depends from Claim 8. Claim 11 further recites “programming the TCAM including the per-host ACL entry” in lines 2-3. The use of “including” is grammatically unclear in context. The claim additionally recites “to match on” in lines 3 and 4-5. This phrasing is grammatically ambiguous and should be clarified. The claim also recites “the ACL identifier” in line 3. It is not clear to which of the plural ACL identifiers this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 13 recites “the ACL identifier” in line 1 and “the MAC address” in line 2. However, because there are plural ACL identifiers and MAC addresses, it is not clear to which of these the above phrases are intended to refer.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Immidi, US Patent 10778612 (previously cited in the Office action mailed 29 October 2024).
In reference to Claim 1, Immidi discloses a method that includes determining ACLs to be applied to packets received from each of one or more hosts (column 7, lines 19-56; Figure 3); associating ACL identifiers with each ACL and creating ACL entries in a TCAM where each ACL entry includes an ACL and corresponding associated ACL identifier (column 8, line 58-column 9, line 11, and Figure 4; see also column 10, line 10-column 12, line 10, and Figures 5A-6B, details of TCAM); determining a corresponding MAC address for each host and associating one of the ACL identifiers with each MAC address (column 8, lines 6-57); receiving a first packet at the network device, determining a first MAC address from the first packet, determining a first ACL identifier associated with the first MAC address, and performing a lookup in the TCAM based on the first ACL identifier to determine a first ACL (see column 6, lines 44-57, receiving packet and determining address; column 7, line 19-column 8, line 57, receiving packet, ACL lookup); and controlling the flow of the first packet according to an action specified by the first ACL (column 8, lines 30-42, drop or forward).
In reference to Claims 3 and 4, Immidi further discloses creating an entry for the MAC address in a forwarding database and performing a lookup for the first ACL identifier in the forwarding database based on the MAC address (see column 8, line 59-column 9, line 11, forwarding table).
In reference to Claims 5 and 6, Immidi further discloses determining that the first ACL is to be applied to packets received from a second host (column 7, lines 19-56; Figure 3); associating the first the ACL identifier with a MAC address of the second host (column 8, lines 6-57); receiving a second packet at the network device, determining the second MAC address from the second packet, determining the first ACL identifier associated with the second MAC address, and performing a lookup in the TCAM based on the first ACL identifier to determine the first ACL (see column 6, lines 44-57, receiving packet and determining address; column 7, line 19-column 8, line 57, receiving packet, ACL lookup); and controlling the flow of the first packet according to the action specified by the first ACL (column 8, lines 30-42, drop or forward).
In reference to Claims 8 and 9, Immidi discloses a method that includes creating, in a TCAM, a port ACL entry that includes a first ACL and a port identifier for a port of a network device (column 8, lines 43-57, port ACL); determining a second ACL to be applied to packets received at the network device from one or more hosts (column 7, lines 19-56; Figure 3); associating an ACL identifier with the second ACL and creating a per-host ACL entry in the TCAM where the per-host ACL entry includes the second ACL and associated first ACL identifier (column 8, line 58-column 9, line 11, and Figure 4; see also column 10, line 10-column 12, line 10, and Figures 5A-6B, details of TCAM); receiving a first packet at the network device and determining a first MAC address from the first packet (see column 6, lines 44-57, receiving packet and determining address; column 7, line 57-column 8, line 5, receiving packet); when the MAC address is not associated with the first ACL identifier, performing a lookup in the TCAM based on the port identifier and a default ACL identifier, which can be 0, and controlling the flow of the first packet according to a first action specified by the first ACL (column 7, line 19-column 8, line 57, ACL lookup, dropping or forwarding packet, use of port ACL); and when the MAC address is associated with the first ACL identifier, performing a lookup in the TCAM based on the first ACL identifier and controlling the flow of the first packet according to a second action specified by the second ACL (column 7, line 19-column 8, line 57, ACL lookup, dropping or forwarding packet).
In reference to Claims 11 and 12, Immidi further discloses creating the per-host ACL entry and port ACL entry by programming the TCAM, which includes a “don’t care” parameter (column 10, line 10-column 12, line 10; see also column 1, lines 17-18 for “don’t care”).
In reference to Claim 13, Immidi further discloses that the ACL identifiers and MAC addresses are associated in a forwarding database (see column 8, line 59-column 9, line 11, forwarding table).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492