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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on September 04, 2025 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 15 and 24 have been amended.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 15 and 24 overcome the 112(b) claim rejections to the claims 15-19, 21-22, 24-26 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 05, 2025.
Claims 1-5,7-8,10-12,15-19,21-22 and 24-26 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 04, 2025 regarding claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered but the arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the earlier 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection mailed June 05, 2025.
Applicant Argument - 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection for claims 1 and 15: "assigning an indication to a frame of one or more frames comprised in a first member stream, of the one or more member streams, the first member stream outgoing from the at least one elimination function" is not taught by the combination of Subramanian and 802.1CB. Applicant's disclosure explains that a multi-stage FRER node chain includes an intermediate stage that performs the elimination function and forwards the stream with non-duplicate packets to a subsequent node with a stream_handle indication. Applicant argues Subramanian keeps sequence numbers “unchanged”, but Subramanian does not teach or suggest that the frames that are output from an elimination function are assigned a frame indication that identifies the stream to which each frame belongs and that 802.1CB does not disclose assigning an indication to the elimination output. (pg. 2 and 3 of 5)
Examiner Response: The OA combination relies on (i) Subramanian’s FRER unit performing per stream FRER – including sequence recovery (elimination) – together with tagging/untagging, providing unique ID into the forwarding pipeline (Fig. 2/4/6A/6B) with the switch 202 (node) including three ports 204, 206, and 208 for ingress/egress with internal bus to form the multi-stage FRER in the node (Fig. 2) and (ii) 802.1CB’s stream identification & management model that assigns/derives a stream_handle (the indication).
Given Subramanian disclosed forwarding pipeline after sequence recovery (elimination) that includes tagging/untagging action, unique ID assignment to each stream (col. 12, l25, col. 14, ll. 33-42), it would have been obvious to apply 802.1CB’s stream identification management to assign/maintain a stream_handle identifying the outgoing member stream at that juncture – i.e., after elimination, before/at forwarding - so the downstream stage can perform sequence recovery on the correct stream_handle as supported by the FRER unit 219. 802.1CB discloses in §7.1.1 “Figure 7-1 illustrates an example of a Compound Stream with four component Member Streams. In this example, a sequence_number subparameter (6.1) is generated and encoded into each packet in the leftmost box. Sequence recovery functions (7.4.2) eliminate duplicate packets, and the non-duplicate packets copied as a new Member Stream (with sequence numbers unchanged), at two intermediate points.”, the exact label of “frerSeqRcvyStreamOut” is just an applicant terminology. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15-19, 21, 22, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US 10862802 B1), hereinafter Subramanian, in view of NPL Cite No. 4: “Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability, IEEE Std 802.1.CB; September 28, 2017, 102 pages” (as provided by the IDS submitted on April 14, 2023), hereinafter 802.1CB.
Regarding Claim 1, Subramanian discloses A method performed by a node (FIG. 1, 2, illustrated an IC 100 including a switch 202 (a node))
the method being for handling one or more member streams split from a stream of frames, ([col. 7, line 64-67, col. 8, lines 1-26] the switch 202 includes a frame replication and elimination for reliability (FRER) unit 219 that may perform a per stream frame replication. The member decision unit 217 may determine member decisions including actions associated with a sequence including multiple member streams for sequence recovery. [Fig. 4, 7, col. 16, lines 27-30]: the packets of a frame may be replicated and then be sent on two or more disjoint paths)
the node supporting at least one replication function and ([col. 7, lines 38-49, FIG. 2]: The switch 202 includes three ports 204, 206, and 208, where 204 is referred to as an internal endpoint port 204. Each of the ports includes an ingress port and an egress port. [col. 7, line 64-67, col. 8, lines 1-26] the switch 202 includes a frame replication and elimination for reliability (FRER) unit 219 that that may perform a per stream frame replication and elimination function to avoid frame loss due to equipment failure. [Fig. 4, 7, col. 16, lines 27-30]: the packets of a frame may be replicated and then be sent on two or more disjoint paths.)
at least one elimination function to process the one or more member streams the node operating in a communications network ([col. 7, lines 38-49, FIG. 2]: The switch 202 includes three ports 204, 206, and 208, where 204 is referred to as an internal endpoint port 204. Each of the ports includes an ingress port and an egress port. [col. 7, line 64-67, col. 8, lines 1-26] the switch 202 includes a frame replication and elimination for reliability (FRER) unit 219 that may perform a per stream frame replication and elimination function to avoid frame loss due to equipment failure. [Fig. 4, 7, col. 16, lines 27-30]: The frame elimination function may be performed to combine and delete extra packets, indicating the node support both replication and elimination function), the method comprising:
assigning an indication to a frame of one or more frames comprised in a first member stream, of the one or more member streams, ([col. 16, lines 31-50] at block 390, the FRER unit 219 receive frame FRER fields of the received frame, and performs the actions including tagging, untagging, stream splitting, individual recovery, sequence recovery, any other suitable actions, and/or a combination thereof. [col. 16, lines 1-16, FIG. 4, 7] illustrates the switch 202 may use the member IDs (e.g., member configurations 714/716) for making member decisions at block 388. [Fig. 6B, col. 13, lines 32-42, 57-64] illustrates the method of tagging action 658 (e.g., IEEE 802.1 CB tagging actions) and untagging action 668 (e.g., IEEE 802.1 CB untagging action), indicating assigning new IDs after elimination function. [col. 14, lines 33-42] Furthermore, by providing a gate ID that is unique per stream, the CAM structure 600 provides additional flexibility for per stream configurations. For example, TSN defines a unique ID for stream management. In some embodiments, the CAM structure 600 provides the gate ID as the unique ID for stream management. Different sets of actions associated with FRER functions (e.g., stream split functions, stream merge functions, individual recovery functions, tagging, untagging) may be performed for different streams based on the forwarding paths of those streams.)
forwarding the first member stream outgoing from the at least one elimination function, ([col. 7, lines 38-49, FIG. 2]: The switch 202 includes three ports 204, 206, and 208, where 204 is referred to as an internal endpoint port 204. col. 8, lines 19-26, The FRER unit 219 may control the network traffic by performing various actions like filtering decisions, member decisions, and/or a combination thereof, and may perform queuing functions and transmission functions, and forward the selected frames to the corresponding egress ports. [col. 8, lines 17-26)] the FRER unit 219 may perform frame elimination function before forwarding the stream.)
comprising the one or more frames identified by the indication ([Fig. 6B, col. 13, lines 32-42, 57-64] illustrates the method of tagging action 658 (e.g., IEEE 802.1 CB tagging actions) and untagging action 668 (e.g., IEEE 802.1 CB untagging action), indicating assigning new IDs after elimination function.), to at least one of:
a) another function supported by the node, and ([Fig. 2, col. 7, lines 40-43] The port 204 (ingress/outgress) connects to a processing unit 210 and a memory 212 through internal buses. As such, the port 204 is also referred to as an internal endpoint port 204. [Fig. 3B, col. 9, lines 6-26] shows forwarding paths 320 and 322, a stream is forwarded between a network port (206 or 208 of FIG. 2) and an internal endpoint port (204) of a switch 202, indicates another function supported by one of the ports in the node.)
b) another node operating in the communications network. ([Fig. 2, col. 7, lines 42-45] The ports 206 (Ingress/Egress) and 208 (Ingress/Egress) are connected to an external network through a network interface, indicates stream ingress/outgress from/to another node in the communication network.)
Though Subramanian discloses multiple ports including internal (col. 7, lines 38-49) and ability to perform FRER on the ports [col. 8, lines 17-26], Subramanian does not explicitly disclose:
the method being for handling one or more member streams split from a stream of frames,
the method comprising:
the first member stream outgoing from the at least one elimination function,
the indication being the same in every frame of the one or more frames,
the indication identifying the first member stream as being an output member stream comprised in the stream of frames; and
802.1CB, however, discloses:
the method being for handling one or more member streams split from a stream of frames, ([§ 7.1.1 p.33 Fig. 7-1] illustrates an example of a Compound Stream with four component Member Streams. FRER has the goal of packet replication (splitting), by replicating packets, sending them on separate paths, and then using the sequence_number to eliminate replicates, as illustrated with stream 1 and stream 2 in Fig. 7-1)
the method comprising:
the first member stream outgoing from the at least one elimination function, (As [§ 7.1.1 p.33 Fig. 7-1] illustrates, Stream 3 is outgoing from a Sequence recovery function (elimination function))
the indication being the same in every frame of the one or more frames, ([§ 7.4 p. 36] On any given port, zero or more instances of the Sequence generation function, and/or Sequence recovery function can be instantiated. These functions can be instantiated as in-facing or out-facing functions. For both kinds of functions, the stream_handle subparameter of a packet determines through which function, if any, the packet (frame) is passed. [Clause 6. § 6.1 p. 27] illustrates subparameters required by the Stream identification function: a) stream_handle: An integer identifying the Stream to which the packet belongs. b) sequence_number: An unsigned integer identifying the order in which the packet was transmitted relative to other packets in the same Compound Stream, indicates every frame in a given stream using the same stream_handle (indication))
the indication identifying the first member stream as being an output member stream comprised in the stream of frames; and ([§ 7.1.1 p.33 Fig. 7-1] illustrates an example of a Sequence recovery functions (7.4.2) eliminate duplicate packets from Stream 1 and 2, and the non-duplicate packets copied as a new Member Stream (example Stream 3, as first member stream) (with sequence numbers unchanged), at two intermediate points. [§ 7.2 p.35] explains use of the term Stream (ex. Stream 3) will recognize the distinction between a Member Stream and a Compound Stream is required. the present standard defines a stream_handle subparameter that is used to identify a Stream.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 2, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. Subramanian and 802.1CB further disclose:
wherein the assigning of the indication is performed to every frame of the one or more frames comprised in the first member stream. (802.1CB in [§ 7.1.1 p.33 Fig. 7-1] illustrates an example of a Sequence recovery functions (7.4.2) eliminate duplicate packets from Stream 1 and 2, and the non-duplicate packets copied as a new Member Stream (example Stream 3, first member stream) (with sequence numbers unchanged), at two intermediate points.). Subramanian discloses [col. 10, lines 42-49, Fig. 5] each frame has header fields (e.g., destination MAC address, VLAN identifier (ID), priority fields), indicating the identification of each frame in a stream)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 3, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. 802.1CB further disclose:
wherein the indication uniquely identifies the one or more frames comprised in the first member stream from any frames comprised in the other one or more member streams of the node. (802.1CB § 6.2 Stream identification function, Fig 6-4: A unique SAP corresponds to each value of the stream_handle subparameter, including one SAP for packets belonging to no known Stream. An SAP can serve more than one stream_handle value. Fig 6-4 illustrates the packets uniquely identified with Service interface + stream_handle + sequence_number. Subramanian also discloses [col. 14, lines 35-38] TSN defines a unique ID for stream management. the CAM structure 600 provides the gate ID as the unique ID for stream management. [Fig. 5, col. 14, lines 52-55] for each frame, the frame lookup output 428 may include an ingress port ID, VLAN member ports 412, actions, gate ID, and/or a combination thereof.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 4, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. 802.1CB further disclose:
wherein the first member stream comprises at least two frames originated in different ingress member streams or different member streams input into the at least one elimination function. (802.1CB in Figure 7-1 illustrates two streams (Stream 1 and Stream 2) ingress to a sequence recovery function and outputting Stream 3, after Sequence recovery functions (7.4.2) eliminate duplicate packets, and the non-duplicate packets copied as a new Member Stream (with sequence numbers unchanged))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 5, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. Subramanian and 802.1CB further disclose:
wherein the assigning comprises changing a parameter to handle the stream to the indication, (Subramanian, [col. 14, lines 35-42] TSN defines a unique ID for stream management. Different sets of actions associated with FRER functions (e.g., stream split functions, stream merge functions, individual recovery functions, tagging, untagging) may be performed for different streams based on the forwarding paths of those streams. [Fig. 3B, col. 9, lines 40-43] The encapsulation layer unit 336 performs stream transformation to translate the user stream identification 326 to network stream identification 328 of the stream, indicates changing identification in the forwarding path. 802.1CB [§7.3 e) p. 36] discloses FRER also requires the Stream identification function (Clause 6): 1) Passes each packet, if required by the particular encapsulation method configured, uses the stream_handle to alter the packet)
wherein the parameter is a stream_handle parameter. (802.1CB in [clause 6 §6.1, p.27] The parameters of the service offered by Stream identification include stream_handle and sequence number to identify the packets)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 7, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. 802.1CB further disclose:
wherein assigning is performed one of: a) prior to a PRESENT_DATA event in a Sequence Recovery Function and b) during an Individual Recovery Function. (802.1CB [§7.4.1 p. 36] discloses generating sequence_number subparameter for each packet of a Stream passed down to the lower layers. There is at most one sequence generation function per port per stream_handle value per direction (in-facing or out-facing), indicates assigning indication on the packets. [§7.4 p. 36] Sequence recovery functions (7.4.2) operate on packets passed up the stack towards the higher layer functions and use the sequence_number subparameter to decide which packets to pass and which to discard. [§7.4.3.1 p. 39] PRESENT_DATA is the event that presents a packet up the stack from the sequence recovery function to the upper layers, indicating the PRESENT_DATA is in later stage after sequence generation or assigning is performed prior to PRESENT_DATA event)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 8, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. 802.1CB further disclose:
wherein the indication is a managed object ([§ 9. Stream Identification Management. p. 61] managed objects control Stream identification as described in subclauses: The Stream identity table (9.1) assigns packets a stream_handle (6.1); [§ 9.1. Stream identity table. p. 61] Each entry in the Stream identity table has a tsnStreamIdHandle object (9.1.1.1) specifying a stream_handle value, implies the indication is a managed object.)
wherein the indication is frerSeqRcvyStreamOut. ([§ 10. FRER management. p. 67] The value of stream_handle can be in the frerSeqGenStreamList (10.3.1.1), the stream_handle for the Stream 3 and Stream 4 in Fig. 7-1 can be frerSeqRcvyStreamOut as the output after elimination function, as the application reference [¶0058])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Subramanian with 802.1CB to enable IEEE standard compliant FRER to provide increased reliability (reduced packet loss rates) for a Stream. (§ 7.1.1)
Regarding Claim 10, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. Subramanian further disclose:
receiving, at the another function, the first member stream output from the at least one elimination function, comprising the one or more frames as identified by the indication. ([col. 7, lines 38-49, FIG. 2]: The switch 202 includes three ports 204, 206, and 208, where 204 is referred to as an internal endpoint port 204. Each of the ports includes an ingress port and an egress port. [Fig. 3B, col. 9, lines 6-26] shows forwarding paths 320 and 322, a stream is forwarded between a network port (206 or 208 of FIG. 2) and an internal endpoint port (204) of a switch 202, indicates output from one elimination function port forwarded to (received by) another port for another function. [col. 13, lines 25-65] Fig. 6B discloses different sets of actions may be provided by the lookup process using the CAM structure based on a frame's forwarding path in the switch. Block 664, discloses actions including sequence recovery action 666 (including e.g., stream merge action 670) (elimination function of FRER) and block 654, discloses stream split action 656 (replication function))
Regarding Claim 11, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. Subramanian further disclose:
wherein the node supports multi-stage Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability, FRER. ([col. 7, lines 38-49, FIG. 2]: The switch 202 includes three ports 204, 206, and 208, where 204 is referred to as an internal endpoint port 204. Each of the ports includes an ingress port and an egress port. [col. 8, lines 17-26] the FRER unit 219 may perform FRER on these ports, indicates the support of muti-stage FRER within the node 100 included with the switch 202)
Regarding Claim 12, Subramanian and 802.1CB disclose claim 1. Subramanian further disclose:
wherein the communications network supports Time Sensitive Networking, TSN. (col. 3, lines 40-45, For integrated circuit (IC) solutions (see Fig. 2), it has been discovered that an IC that integrates network components (e.g., a switch) and endpoint components (e.g., a talker, a listener) may be used in a time aware network system (e.g., a TSN system), indicates the support of TSN in the network.)
Regarding Claims 15-19, 21, 22, 24-26, Claims 15-19, 21, 22, 24-26 are directed to apparatus claims and Subramanian discloses A node (FIG. 1, 2, illustrated an IC 100 including a switch 202 (a node)), for handling one or more member streams configured to be split from a stream of frames, the node being configured to support at least one replication function and at least one elimination function to process the one or more member streams, the node being further configured to operate in a communications network, the node comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 1, 2 IC 100 for the switch includes processor 110) configured to perform the methods that do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1-6, 7, 8, and 10-12. Therefore, claims 15-19, 21, 22, 24-26 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 1-6, 7, 8, and 10-12.
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 MOHAMMED NIAMUL HUDA KHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/M.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights