DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions within group I and group II are not drawn to different inventions, but rather, they are directed towards the same inventive concept of operating virtual forwarding devices to determine forwarding paths and forward frames of data across the virtual network. This is not found persuasive because Claim 20 is disclosed in Fig. 12, which is a flow chart illustrating an example of a method 1200 of forming a virtual network in accordance with the present invention, and claims 1-19 are disclosed to be within Fig. 3, which is disclosed of an operating transmitting circuit 200 in accordance with the present invention.
The applicant additional argues that “the claimed virtual network includes and required forwarding operation performed by the virtual forwarding devices and is not independent from the claimed sub combination. However, the examiner disagrees that the elements within the subcombination of routing to the next hop or the alternative hop is not considering the data rate as within the overall network. Additionally, the overall network does group recites a step of “splitting the received frames of data at a frame rate greater than the maximum frame rate into a first number of received frames of data with a first physical fiber in the fiber optic cable, and a second number of received frames of data rate that is equal to or less than a maximum data rate of a second physical fiber in the fiber optic cable”, but does not require that the resulting of determining an alternate hop, or the routing of the element to an alternative hop, rather that the data simply be split.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1-19 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.
Re claim 1, 11, and 19 the claim recites conditional limitations, such as “when the current device is not the last hop device, unpack the second encapsulated frame to extract a first encapsulated frame”, such that the limitations that follow would require the certain of the device not being the last hop device and these steps would not be required if it when the device is not the last hop device. Then in the scenario where the system is not the last hop device, the limitation of “extract an identifier of a virtual exit device from the first encapsulate frame” and all of the other limitations that follow are not required and makes the claim scope vague and indefinite, as they are required by the other scenario.
Additionally, the claim limitation recites two different scenarios which are, on is “when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device can accept frames for forwarding” and “when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device cannot accept frames for forwarding” that are mutually exclusive, such that the limitations that follow these limitations are also mutually exclusive such that as only one scenario is possible and it could vary, the claim scope could vary and therefore the claim scope is indefinite.
Re claims 2-9 and 12-18, these claims are dependent upon claim 1 and 10 respectively and do not remedy the issues such that these claims are also rejected on 112 issues.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Re claim 5 and 6, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims are dependent upon claim 1, and additionally recites “wherein the third encapsulated frame further comprises a field that includes the first encapsulated frame”. However, the third encapsulated frame is only present within the scenario of "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device can accept frames for forwarding". This would not limit the claim scope if the scenario is "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device cannot accept frames for forwarding" as the third encapsulated frame is not present and therefore the claim is not further limited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Re claim 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims are dependent upon claim 1 and additionally recite "when the transmit physical port coupled to the alternate hop device can accept frames for forwarding", and that the this condition is dependent on the secario of "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device cannot accept frames for forwarding", such that the limitations that follow do not modify of address the limitations of "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device can accept frames for forwarding" such that these limitations are not required when the first scenario is present and therefore in these instances, they would not further limit the claim scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
14. (Original) The method of claim 11, further comprising asserting, by the processor, a hold signal when a first rate at which the frames forwarded to the transmit physical port is greater than a second rate at which the transmit physical port can physically output the frames to the next hop device.
Re claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim is dependent upon claim 11 and additionally recite "further comprising outputting, by the processor, the third encapsulated frame to the next hop device" but this limitation is only drawn to the scenario of "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device can accept frames", such that it would not further limit the claim if the limitation where met of "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device cannot accept frames for forwarding". Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These claims are dependent upon claim 11, and are concern with "when a transmit physical port coupled to the alternate hope device", which is only considered when "the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device cannot accept frame for forwarding", such that they would fail to limit the claim scope in the instance of "when the transmit physical port coupled to the next hop device can accept frames for forwarding”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights