Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to Application 17/903,902 filed on 6 September, 2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-18 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 “A network appliance comprising: a memory that is configured to store a plurality of key specifications; a match-action pipeline that includes a processing stage; a key specification fetch circuit that is in the processing stage; and a key construction circuit that is in the processing stage…the processing stage uses the key to obtain an action indicator from a key-value table, and the processing stage processes the network packet based on the action indicator”. It is unclear from the claim language whether a “match-action pipeline” and “processing stage” are hardware elements or software elements contained in the memory. Claim 13 recites similar elements and pose the same ambiguity in the claim language. Respective dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of the parent claim(s) and therefore, inherit the rejection.
Claim limitation of claims 1-20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 1 recites “A network appliance comprising: a memory that is configured to store a plurality of key specifications; a match-action pipeline that includes a processing stage; a key specification fetch circuit that is in the processing stage; and a key construction circuit that is in the processing stage…the processing stage uses the key to obtain an action indicator from a key-value table, and the processing stage processes the network packet based on the action indicator”. It is unclear from the claim language whether a “match-action pipeline” and “processing stage” are hardware elements or software elements contained in the memory. Claim 13 recites similar elements and pose the same ambiguity in the claim language.
Claim 19 recites “a means for storing a plurality of means for specifying a plurality of keys; a means for receiving a network packet that includes header data; a means for identifying an application for the network packet; a means for reading a means for specifying a key for the network packet; a means for constructing the key from the header data based on the means for specifying the key; a means for using the key to identify a processing action; and a means for performing the processing action to process the network packet, wherein the means for specifying the key for the network packet is one of the means for specifying the plurality of keys”. Claim 19 recites similar placeholders. These claim limitations are expressed in functional terms coupled to a generic placeholder (e.g., “means for”) that does not connote structure and therefore invokes treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kittner et al US2021/0185153
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459