DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 8/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-3, Applicant argues the rejection of claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Xu fails to teach computing the absolute difference or cross-comparing that computed absolute difference against a second value.
However, the instant claim fails to require an actual computation or any cross-comparing. Instead, a simple “when” condition is presented, which merely requires that when an absolute difference between the first value and a reference value is smaller than a second value. Further, the instant claim fails to provide any substantial detail of what constitutes each of the values, where the terms “first,” “reference,” and “second” are labels that fail to even imply a functionality of the value. In the case of Xu, the first value was mapped to be the total number of tokens available, the second value was mapped to be the number of tokens required to send a packet. Finally, the reference value, as applied in claim 1, would be the minimum number of tokens that can be present, such as zero. When the absolute (a positive value that merely expresses how far the two values are, making the order of first value and reference value inconsequential in the conditional statement) difference between the number of tokens available (first) and the minimum number of tokens, such as zero (reference) is less than the number of tokens required to send the packet, the packet is discarded. In Applicant’s remarks, the nature of the values is never addressed, such as the reference value. If Applicant intends for the values to have specific functionalities or requirements, the instant claim should be amended to reflect this.
Applicant addresses the rejection of claim 5, arguing that Xu makes no mention of any separate target or reference value or a two-stage arithmetic. However, as above, the instant claims do not actually provide any calculations that are performed or the actual nature of the values. Further, the quotient mentioned in claim 5 is never calculated, and instead is recited as a property of M without the system ever needing to determine M, and the values are not actually defined in functionality other than that if the first value is equal to a target value, the protection circuit stops updating the clock (claim 4), which would be a maximum number of tokens that the system can have. With the second value equaling the number of tokens required to send a packet, the system would only allow M packets, which would be the depth (target value) minus 0 (reference value) divided by the number of tokens required to send a packet (second value). Applicant should amend the instant claims to clearly reflect what Applicant regards as being required, such as reciting any explicit calculations that are performed, the functionality of the various values, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2020/0053590 (Xu).
With regard to claim 1, Xu discloses a media access control (MAC) circuit coupled to a physical layer circuit (Xu: Paragraph [0016] and Figure 13), comprising:
a storage circuit configured to store a first value and a second value (Xu: Paragraph [0148]. Several values are provided for, where the first value would be the number of tokens currently available. A second is the number of tokens required to send a packet.);
a receiving circuit configured to receive a packet from the physical layer circuit (Xu: Paragraph [0148);
a checking circuit configured to check the packet (Xu: Paragraph [0148]. Lacking detail of how the packet is checked, the determination of whether to send the packet or not would constitute such a checking. Further, in Xu, different quantities of tokens are consumed for packets of different sizes, meaning at least the size of the packet is checked.); and
a protection circuit configured to perform following steps:
updating the first value according to a clock (Xu: Paragraph [0148]. The total number of tokens available (first value) has tokens added according to a rate, where such would be increased in accordance with some clock.); and
discarding the packet when an absolute difference between the first value and a reference value is smaller than the second value (Xu: Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0040], [0148], and [0150] and Figure 3. Lacking detail of what the reference value is or what constitutes an absolute difference versus a difference, discarding the packet when there are not enough tokens would be within the scope of the instant claim language, as a “reference value,” these terms must be afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification, which appears to fail to provide any limitation on these terms. In Xu, if the quantity of tokens would be less than a token threshold, the packet is not sent, and would eventually be discarded.).
With regard to claim 2, Xu discloses that the MAC circuit is further coupled to a computing circuit (Xu: Figure 13), and the protection circuit further performs following steps: allowing the packet to be accessed by the computing circuit and updating the first value according to the second value when the absolute difference between the first value and the reference value is greater than or equal to the second value (Xu: Paragraph [0148] and Figure 3. The number of tokens required to send the packet (second value) is deducted from the first value (available tokens) when the packet is allowed to pass.).
With regard to claim 3, Xu discloses wherein the MAC circuit is further coupled to an external memory, when the absolute difference between the first value and the reference value is greater than or equal to the second value, the MAC circuit stores the packet in the external memory and sends an interrupt to the computing circuit (Xu: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0029]. Packets are buffered until they are ready to be sent or expire.).
With regard to claim 4, Xu discloses wherein when the first value is equal to a target value, the protection circuit stops updating the first value according to the clock (Xu: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0151]. When the available tokens reaches the depth, no more tokens are added.).
With regard to claim 5, Xu discloses wherein the protection circuit allows at most M consecutive packets to be accessed by the computing circuit, and M is a quotient of an absolute difference between the target value and the reference value divided by the second value (Xu: Paragraph [0022]).
With regard to claim 6, Xu discloses that the protection circuit discards a next packet immediately following the M packets (Xu: paragraph [0040], [0148], and [0150] and Figure 3. Lacking detail of the specific basis for discarding the packet (e.g. that the discarding is “based on” a specific condition), the disclosure of Xu that when the rate is too high, packets would be discarded as they expire is considered to be within the scope of the instant claim language.).
With regard to claim 7, Xu discloses wherein the step of updating the first value according to the second value is updating the first value to a difference between the first value and the second value or a sum of the first value and the second value Xu: Paragraph [0040], [0148], and [0150] and Figure 3. Tokens would be removed when a packet is sent, meaning that the second value would be subtracted from the first value.).
With regard to claim 8, Xu discloses wherein the protection circuit further performs following steps: determining a packet type of the packet; and determining the second value according to the packet type of the packet (Xu: Paragraph [0148]. Lacking detail of what constitutes a type, at least determining a size to correlate to the number of tokens would be within the scope of such a type, as the packets would at least be categorized in accordance with size.).
With regard to claims 11-18, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-18, and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of US 2017/0302467 (Liu).
With regard to claim 9, Xu fails to disclose, but Liu teaches that the packet type comprises a broadcast packet, a multicast packet, and a unicast packet (Liu: Abstract. In Liu, it is determined if a packet is multicast or unicast, and the packet is treated differently based on the type of packet when utilizing token buckets. As a note, the instant claim does not require that it is determined which of a multicast, broadcast, or unicast packet is being sent with different amounts being associated with each of the different types. Instead, only a singular type needs to be determined, with the second value being determined “according” to the packet type, where after determining that the packet is a unicast packet, the token value would then be according to a unicast packet.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the techniques of Liu to consider multicast transmissions versus unicast transmissions to ensure that slower stations do not use more than their share of resources (Liu: Abstract).
With regard to claim 19, the instant claims is similar to claim 9, and is rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of US 2016/0248477 (Lin).
With regard to claim 10, Xu fails to disclose, but Lin teaches that the MAC circuit is coupled to the physical layer circuit through a transmission interface, and the MAC circuit receives the clock from the transmission interface (Lin: Figure 7 and Paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the MAC circuit coupled to the physical layer circuit through a transmission interface, and the MAC circuit receives the clock from the transmission interface, as in Lin, to enable synchronization and coordination between the MAC circuit and the physical layer circuit.
With regard to claim 20, the instant claims is similar to claim 10, and is rejected for similar reasons.
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 SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444