DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 5/06/2026. Claims 1 and through 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 5/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that applied references Do Not Teach or Suggest an Ingress Gateway that Converts Protocols of Ingress Packets to Generate L2 Packets. Applicant further argued that Finkelstein does not teach converting the packet from one access-network protocol format to another. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,[ converting the packet from one access-network protocol format to another]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Finkelstein teaches during the processing of data, the edge
router (gateway) 110 may be configured to convert or map L3 address data into L2 address data and vice versa and the edge router 110 may be a suitable processing0r-driven device configured to facilitate conversions between virtual addresses and physical addresses (paragraphs 23-32 and at least claim 6)– a gateway ability to be configured or reconfigured depends on the type of gateway. For example a bridge can be configured to convert a L2 received packet to a L2 outgoing packet. A gateway may be a router which can translate L3 received packet to a L3 outgoing packet or a L2 outgoing packet. A gateway may be a L7 gateway which can convert any incoming L2-L7 packet to any outgoing L2-L7 packet according OSI model.
Applicant argued that the combination does not Teach or Suggest an Offload Engine Shared by Frame Engines Within a Router-Bridge System.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,[a Router-Bridge System]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, Williams teaches at least in Fig. 1A the modules 103 is shared between devices 101, 102, 104, and 105.
Applicant argued that the Office Has Not Established an Adequate Rationale to Combine. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, depending on the type of a gateway being implemented corresponding to a OSI layer can be configured to carry out a conversion or translation tasks. For example a gateway at L7 of OSI can be configured to the translation from L1-L7 of a OSI model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijnands et al. (US 2023/0246967 A1) in view of Finkelstein (US 2012/0250504 A1).
For claim 1 Wijnands teaches a router-bridge system (see Fig. 1A and pargraph 30 “packet switching device 100”) comprising:
a plurality of frame engines (see Fig. 1A and pargraph 30 “line cards 101 and 105”), each frame engine comprising:
an ingress gateway configured to receive a plurality of ingress packets and convert protocols of the plurality of ingress packets to generate a plurality of layer 2 (L2) packets (see Fig. 1A and pargraph 30 “line cards 101 (ingress gateways) receive plurality of ingress packets”); and
an egress gateway configured to output a plurality of egress packets (see Fig. 1A and pargraph 30 “line cards 101 (ingress gateways) forward egress packets”);
at least one offload engine in communicate with at least two of the plurality of frame engines, and configured to modify the plurality of ingress packet or the plurality of egress packet (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 30 “an packet processing offload platform (engine) internal to packet switching device 100), which include processors used in processing packets (e.g., forward/send, drop, manipulate, change, modify, receive, create, duplicate, apply a service)”); and
a bus configured to facilitate communication among the plurality of frame engines (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 30 “bus (switching fabric) 130 provides communication among its entities 101, 102, 104, and 105”);
wherein the at least one offload engine is shared by the at least two of the plurality of frame engines (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 30 “an packet processing offload platform (engine) shared among the packet switching device 100 entities”).
Wijnands does not explicitly teach an ingress gateway configured to convert protocols of the plurality of ingress packets to generate a plurality of L2 packets.
However, Finkelstein teaches a router (gateway) may be configured to convert or map L3 address data into L2 address data and vice versa (see Finkelstein: paragraph 23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Finkelstein in packet processing method of Wijnands in order convert IP addresses to MAC addresses (L2 addresses) for customer devices having MAC address (see Finkelstein: paragraph 4 “the CMTS must map the L3 address to a layer two ("L2") address for the
customer device”).
For claim 3 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system wherein the network protocols comprise layer 2 (L2), layer 3 (L3) and layer 4 (L4) protocols (see Finkelstein: Fig. 6B “IP forwarding table of router-L3 protocol” and Fig. 7 “packet 701 with IP DA”).
For claim 5 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system, further comprising a memory configured to store the plurality of processed packets, and download the plurality of processed packets to the each frame engine (see Finkelstein: Fig.1A “memory”, Fig.1B “memory 122 includes instructions and associative memories 125”).
For claim 6 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system of claim 5, wherein the memory is a static random access memory (SRAM) and a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (see Finkelstein: pargraph 32 “RAM…ROM…”).
For claim 7 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system of claim 5, wherein the memory is further configured to store in-band packet messages (see Finkelstein: Fig.1A “memory 101).
For claim 8 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system, wherein the at least one offload engine comprises:
an ingress offload engine in communication with the at least two frame engines, and configured to modify the plurality of L2 packets according to network protocols to generate a plurality of processed packets (as discussed in claim 1); and
an egress offload engine in communication with the at least two frame engines, and configured to modify the plurality of processed packets according to the network protocols to generate a plurality of modified packets (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 9 Wijnands teaches a method of processing network packets with a router-bridge system, the router-bridge system comprising a plurality of frame engines, at least one offload engine shared by at least two of the plurality of frame engines, and a bus, the each frame engine comprising an ingress gateway and an egress gateway (as discussed in claim 1), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of ingress packets by the ingress gateway (as discussed in claim 1);
converting the plurality of ingress packets by the ingress gateway to generate a plurality of layer 2 (L2) packets (as discussed in claim 1);
modifying the plurality of L2 packets according to network protocols to generate a plurality of processed packets (as discussed in claim 1);
storing the plurality of processed packets to the memory via the bus (as discussed in claim 1);
accessing the plurality of processed packets from the memory via the bus (as discussed in claim 1);
modifying the plurality of processed packets according to the network protocols to generate a plurality of modified packets (as discussed in claim 1);
converting the plurality of modified packets to a plurality of egress packets by the egress gateway (as discussed in claim 1); and
outputting the plurality of egress packets by the egress gateway (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 11 Wijnands teaches the method, wherein the network protocols comprise layer 2 (L2), layer 3 (L3) and layer 4 (L4) protocols (as discussed in claim 3).
For claim 13 Wijnands teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the memory is a static random access memory (SRAM) and a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (as discussed in claim 6).
For claim 14 Wijnands teaches the method, wherein the memory stores in-band packet messages (as discussed in claim 5).
For claim 15 Wijnands teaches a router-bridge system (as discussed in claim 1) comprising:
a plurality of frame engines, each frame engine configured to receive a plurality of layer 2 (L2) packets (as discussed in claim 1);
an offload engine in communication with the each frame engine, and configured to modify the plurality of L2 packets according to network protocols to generate a plurality of modified packets (as discussed in claim 1); and a
bus configured to facilitate communication among the plurality of frame engines and a memory (as discussed in claim 1);
wherein the offload engine is shared by at least two of the plurality of frame engines (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 17 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system, wherein the network protocols comprise layer 2 (L2), layer 3 (L3) and layer 4 (L4) protocols (as discussed in claim 3).
For claim 18 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system, wherein each frame engine comprises an ingress gateway and an egress gateway (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 20 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system, further comprising a memory configured to store the plurality of modified packets, and download the plurality of modified packets to the each frame engine (as discussed in claim 5).
For claim 21 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system of claim 20, wherein the memory is a static random access memory (SRAM) and a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (as discussed in claim 6).
For claim 22 Wijnands teaches the router-bridge system of claim 20, wherein the memory is further configured to store in-band packet messages (as discussed in claim 5).
6. Claims 2, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijnands et al. (US 2023/0246967 A1) in view of Finkelstein (US 2012/0250504 A1) further in view of Gebert et al. (US 2022/0022088 A1).
For claim 2 Wijnands in view of Finkelstein does not explicitly teach the router-bridge system, wherein an ingress gateway and an egress gateway of one of the plurality of frame engines are 5G Gateway, Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Gateway or IEEE 802.11 Gateway.
Although, the above limitation is a design choice, Gebert teaches
in a time-sensitive communication system (or time sensitive networking). As an example, a 3GPP-standardized communication system, such as a 5G system, can be integrated in an IEEE-standardized communication system, such as an Ethernet network (see Gebert: paragraph 2). In addition, Gebert teaches 5G TSN Bridge (Gateway or router or switch)/End (ingress or egress or edge) Station (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 53-55). In addition, Gebert teaches integrating IEEE TSN with 5G TSN (see Gebert: paragraphs 64-69).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gebert in the combined packet processing method of Finkelstein and Wijnands in order to integrate 5G and IEEE devices for standards TSN internetworking (see Gebert: paragraphs 2-3).
For claim 10 Wijnands in view of Finkelstein further in view of Gebert teaches the method, wherein an ingress gateway and an egress gateway of one of the plurality of frame engines are 5G Gateway, Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Gateway or IEEE 802.11 Gateway (as discussed in claim 2).
For claim 19 Wijnands in view of Finkelstein further in view of Gebert teaches the router-bridge system, wherein an ingress gateway and an egress gateway of one of the plurality of frame engines are 5G Gateway, Gigabit passive optical network (GPON) Gateway or IEEE 802.11 Gateway (as discussed in claim 2).
7. Claims 4, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijnands et al. (US 2023/0246967 A1) in view of Finkelstein (US 2012/0250504 A1) further in view of Mistry et al. (US 2025/0103783 A1).
For claim 4 Wijnands in view of Finkelstein does not explicitly teach the router-bridge system, wherein the bus is an Advanced eXtensible Interface (AXI) bus.
However, Mistry teaches in an exemplary SoS, the processing subsystem can be communicatively coupled to the programmable logic subsystem by an Advanced extensible Interface ("AXI") bus (see Mistry: paragraph 33).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mistry in the combined packet processing method of Finkelstein and Wijnands in order select a programmable (configurable) bus AXI to allow design customize interface (bus) width (see Mistry: paragraph 33).
For claim 12 Wijnands in view of Finkelstein further in view of Mistry teaches the method, wherein the bus is an Advanced eXtensible Interface (AXI) bus (as discussed in claim 4).
For claim 16 Wijnands in view of Finkelstein further in view of Mistry teaches the router-bridge system, wherein the bus is an Advanced eXtensible Interface (AXI) bus (as discussed in claim 4).
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights