DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims foreign priority to a Chinese application, filed on 13 Apr 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 Mar 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner with the exception of NPLs 3 and 4, which (1) lack a publication date in their IDS listing and (2) are not in English or have an English abstract.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The first time an acronym is used in the claim listing, it should be spelled out. In particular, “MCRC” and “SMD-Cx” in claim 6 need spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The Reply alleges the combination of Choi and IEEE 802.3br fail to teach the most recent claim amendment to claim 6. Reply, 5. In particular, the Reply alleges the cited prior art fails to “determine[ the] correctness of [a] slice via the sliced frame type SMD-Cx.” Ibid. It is unclear to the Examiner if the claimed invention requires the frame type to determine “correctness.” Regardless if it’s a requirement or not, IEEE 802.3br is now cited for teaching a field after the preamble that indicates the SMD type of a fragment. Infra. Like the described invention, the SMD values indicate a frame count for use in reassembling the preempted packet. IEEE 802.3br, pg. 41, table 9-1. The frame count prevents reassembling an invalid packet. Id. at pg. 40, section 99.3.3 (3rd paragraph). As a result, the SMD field is used for “correctness” in packet reassembly, like the described invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20220303083) in view of IEEE 802.3br-2016, Amendment 5: Specification and Management Parameters for Interspersing Express Traffic, IEEE Computer Society, 30 June 2016 (pg. 1-57).
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches a deterministic data transmission method for a compatibility network, comprising
slicing of low priority data (Choi, figure 3 – step s350 fragments low priority preemptable frame), enveloping low priority frames (Choi, figure 7 – elements 711-715 and 741-743 packetizes the preemptable frame payload), combining sliced frames (Choi, figure 7 – see “+” between first fragmented payload, intermediate fragmented payload and last fragmented payload), and verifying a combination of sliced frames (Choi, ¶104 – frame length used to verify if preemptable frame is been fragmented or not),
wherein in the slicing of low priority data, a transmitting device slicing low priority data into a first frame, a . . .intermediate frame, and a tail frame (Choi, figure 7 – first, intermediate, and last fragments);
in the enveloping low priority frames, keeping the first frame in the same frame format as an unsliced low priority frame (Choi, figure 6-7 – custom preamble 710a of 1st fragmented payload has the same fields as the custom preamble 610 for an unfragmented preemptable frame payload 602),
the transmitting device applying MCRC in frame preemption instead of CRC as a checksum with 4 bytes in a tail, introducing a preamble in the . . intermediate frame and the tail frame after slicing (Choi, figure 7 – 4 byte fragment FCS 741-443 for each fragmented payload), not introducing a destination address or an Ethernet type segment in the . . . intermediate frame and the tail frame . . . (Choi, figure 7 – no destination addresses or Ethernet types provided in preambles 710b and 710c); and
in the combining sliced frames and the verifying the combination of sliced frames, for different low priority sliced first frames, a receiving device determining correctness of the low priority sliced first frames via the byte after the preamble (Choi, figure 4, s440-s460 – receiving device compares the frame length information, which is after the preamble as shown in figure 6, to verify if all fragments have been received);
for different low priority sliced intermediate frames and tail frames, the receiving device determining whether adjacent low priority slices arrive correctly and in order via the byte after the preamble. Choi, figure 6 and ¶77 (receiving device uses the frame length information, which is after the preamble, to determine if the accumulated byte count has been reached to determine if all fragments have been received).
Figure 7 of Choi does not explicitly teach (1) a “plurality of” intermediate fragmented payloads or (2) “filling a sliced frame type in a byte after the preamble to mark as a certain subsequent frame of a slice, wherein the sliced frame type is SMD-Cx.” Instead of (1), Choi does teach iteratively fragmenting a preemptable frame multiple times due to one or more express frames preempting the transmission of the preemptable frame. Choi, figure 3 (steps 340-390 are preformed multiple times until the transmission of the preemptable frame is completed). Choi also teaches a fragment count that is placed in the preamble of ever fragment of a preemptable frame’s multiple payloads that is 1 byte. Choi, ¶23 and figure 7 (elements 715b and 715c). The fragment count is 1 byte in the preamble and is defined by the IEEE 802.3br standard. Id. at ¶¶100-101. The IEEE 802.3br explicitly teaches (1) a fragment counter with four values, which enables multiple intermediate frames. IEEE 802.3br, pg. 41 (table 99-2). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable multiple intermediate fragmented payloads, as taught by IEEE 802.3br, within the frame preemption, taught by Choi, in order to interrupt a low priority frame multiple times by a series of high priority express frames, while still enabling detection of the loss of up to 3 packet fragments. Id. at pg. 40 (section 99.3.4); see also id. at 43 (section 99.4.4 for background on transmitting device’s operations).
Instead of (2), Choi teaches a frame length field identifies if the payload is fragmented or not (i.e. sliced or not). Choi, ¶98; see also id., figure 7 (FRAG_Count fields 715b and 115c, which are after the preamble field, marks the fragment count order). However, IEEE 802.3br teaches (2) an “SMD” field after the preamble (IEEE 802.3br, pg. 40, figure 99-4), where the SMD field values for a continuation fragment of a preemptable packet include SMD-C0, SMD-C1, SMD-C2, and SMD-C3. IEEE 802.3br, pg. 4, section 99.3.3, 4th paragraph. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the SMD field, taught by IEEE 802.3br, within the preemptable frame fragments, taught by Choi, in order to indicate wither the mPacket contains an express packet, start of a preemptable packet, or a continuation fragment for the purposes of reassembly. Id. at pg. 40, section 99.3.3, 1st and 3rd paragraphs.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Choi and IEEE 802.3br also teaches wherein a second byte after the preamble of the plurality of intermediate frames and the tail frame comprises a slice counter segment. Choi, figure 7 and ¶100 (frag_count 715b and 715c are each one byte that occurs after the respective preamble for each intermediate and last fragmented payload); IEEE 802.3br, pg. 40, figure 99-4(b) (FRAG_COUNT after SMD field).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Choi and IEEE 802.3br also teaches modifying one or two segments after the preamble of the first frame, the plurality of intermediate frames, and the tail frame in the frame preemption (Choi, figure 7 – by packetizing each fragmented payload with a custom preamble, the intermediate and last frames are modified), wherein the segments comprise a SMD segment and a MCRC segment (Choi, ¶¶41-42 and figure 7 – mPacket is divided into SMD segments and the mCRC distinguishes each segment); SMD-Sx and SMD-Cx are applied to the first frame and subsequent frames in low priority frames, respectively (Choi, ¶41 – SMD-S and SMD-C are for low priority, preemptable frame fragments), and the SMD-Sx and SMD-Cx provide 3 different values for slice counting, respectively. IEEE 802.3br at pg. 41, table 99-1 (SMD-S and SMD-C each have frame counts of 0-3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Choi and IEEE 802.3br also teaches the receiving device recording a slice counting value of the last received frame to compare with that of a received frame next time; the receiving device determining that the frame was transmitted in error after the received frame does not meet consecutive slice counting, thereby discarding the received frame; and the receiving device discarding slices that have been buffered and slices that have not yet been received. Choi, ¶¶74-75 and figure 4, s440-s450 (frag_count used to determine validity of a received frame and if the received frame is invalid, the current and stored fragments are discarded).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Choi and IEEE 802.3br also teaches wherein MCRC is introduced into tails of the plurality of intermediate frames, and the MCRC is configured to check frame bytes of sliced data frames. Choi, ¶42 (mCRC updates the FCS field for each fragment); IEEE 802.3br at pg. 43 (section 99.4.4, 3rd and 5th paragraphs – mCRC appended to all non-final mPackets and its used to cyclic redundancy check of the fragment).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights