DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/485189 filed on 10/11/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 11, the preamble “A computer program product, comprising at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium and including instructions, for execution by a processing unit of a network element, to respond to receipt of a frame by the network element, the response comprising:” should be replaced with “A computer program product, comprising at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium and including instructions, for execution by a processing unit of a network element, to perform a method in respond to receipt of a frame by the network element, the method comprising:”.
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.
Claims 6-10 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 6, no transitional phrases, such as, “comprising” is found in the claim. Thus, it is unclear about the scope of the claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, or what limitations should be considered as the body/preamble of the claims.
In addition, according to MPEP 2106.03 (I), a machine (i.e. an apparatus) is defined as "...a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices..." The statutory definition of a machine is something that has plural parts. However, in clam 6 the “network element” contains/comprises no components / parts / hardware for performing the claimed function(s). As such, claim 6 does not recite either a plurality of parts, devices or a combination of devices; thus, claim 6 appears to be indefinite for lacking adequate structure.
Claim 7-10 each recites the limitation “The method of claim 6”. However, there is insufficient antecedent base for this limitation in the claims. In this case, claim 6 is not a method claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,418,460 B2. The limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application are either obvious over (i.e. just changing the statutory class.) or anticipated by the scope of the limitations as in claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,418,460 B2.
Instant Application
US Patent 11,418,460 B2
Claim 1
A method of forwarding data, by a network element within a network, to one or more processes within the network element, comprising:
a. receiving, via a port, an ingress frame including the data, a destination address, and a source address;
b. determining that a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address, is within the network element;
c. determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address;
d. in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting one or more processes in a memory of the network element; and
e. forwarding the data to the selected process or processes.
Claim 1
A method of forwarding data by a data switch located within a network, comprising: from a memory of the data switch or from one or more ports of the data switch,
receiving an ingress packet including the data, a destination address, and a source address;
determining the location of a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address;
determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address;
in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting an egress port from among a plurality of egress ports leading toward the indicated location of the destination of the data; and
forwarding the data to the selected egress port.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1,
wherein forwarded data is accompanied by suppressed or compressed frame header data restored in accordance with the flow parameter set.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1,
wherein data sent to the selected egress port is
accompanied by suppressed or compressed frame header data restored in accordance with the flow parameter set
Claim 5
The method of claim 1,
wherein content of the flow parameter set is partially or entirely within the source address
Claim 3
The method of claim 1,
wherein content of the flow parameter set is partially or entirely found within the source address.
Instant Application
US Patent 11,418,460 B2
Claim 6.
A network element configured to:
a. receive, via a port, an ingress frame including data, a destination address, and a source address;
b. determine that a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address, is within the network element;
c. determine a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address;
d. in accordance with the flow parameter set, select one or more processes in a memory of the network element; and
e. forward the data to the selected process or processes.
Claim 5.
A data switch configured to forward data of an ingress packet, comprising: one or more ports; a memory; a processing unit configured to: from a memory of the data switch or from one or more ports of the data switch,
receive an ingress packet including the data, a destination address, and a source address;
determine the location of a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address;
determine a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address;
in accordance with the flow parameter set, select an egress port from among a plurality of egress ports leading toward the indicated location of the destination of the data; and
forward the data to the selected egress port.
Claim 7
The method of claim 6, wherein the network element is a switch.
Claim 5
A data switch configured to …
Claim 9
The method of claim 6,
wherein data sent to the selected process is accompanied by suppressed or compressed frame header data restored in accordance with the flow parameter set.
Claim 8
The data switch of claim 5,
wherein data sent to the selected egress port is accompanied by suppressed or compressed frame header data restored in accordance with the flow parameter set.
Claim 10
The method of claim 6,
wherein content of the flow parameter set is partially or entirely within the source address.
Claim 7
The data switch of claim 5,
wherein content of the flow parameter set is partially or entirely found within the source address within the ingress packet.
Instant Application
US Patent 11,418,460 B2
Claim 11
A computer program product, comprising at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium and including instructions, for execution by a processing unit of a network element, to respond to
receipt of a frame by the network element, the response comprising: a. identifying data, a destination address, and a source address of the received frame;
b. determining the location of a destination of the data in a frame, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address;
c. determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address;
d. in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting an egress port from among a plurality of egress ports leading toward the indicated location of the destination of the data; and
e. forwarding the data to the selected egress port.
Claim 1
A method of forwarding data by a data switch located within a network, comprising: from a memory of the data switch or from one or more ports of the data switch,
receiving an ingress packet including the data, a destination address, and a source address;
determining the location of a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address;
determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address;
in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting an egress port from among a plurality of egress ports leading toward the indicated location of the destination of the data; and
forwarding the data to the selected egress port.
Claim 14
The computer program product of claim 11, further comprising instructions instructing the network element to
place the data in a queue selected in accordance with the flow parameter set or to schedule the forwarding of the data in accordance with the flow parameter set.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, further comprising
placing the data in a queue selected in accordance with the flow parameter set or scheduling the forwarding of the data in accordance with the flow parameter set
Claim 16
The computer program product of claim 11, further comprising instructions instructing the network element to
determine the flow parameter set using information partially or entirely within the source address.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1,
wherein content of the flow parameter set is partially or entirely found within the source address
Claim 17
The computer program product of claim 11, further comprising instructions instructing the network element to
accompany data sent to the selected egress port by suppressed or compressed frame header data restored in accordance with the flow parameter set
Claim 4
The method of claim 1,
wherein data sent to the selected egress port is
accompanied by suppressed or compressed frame header data restored in accordance with the flow parameter set
Claim 20
The computer program product of claim 11, further comprising instructions instructing the network element to
select the egress port from calculation using information found explicitly within the ingress packet, without use of forwarding tables.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the identity of the
selected egress port is found from calculation using information found explicitly within the ingress packet, without use of forwarding tables.
Allowable Subject Matters
Claims 1-20 will be allowed if the pending claim objections/rejections are overcome. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Claims 1, 6 are allowed over the prior art of record because the Examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art reference which teach the limitation “determining that a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address, is within the network element; determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address; in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting one or more processes in a memory of the network element” with respect to the additional claimed subject matter and in particular the specific boundaries as recited in the claim. It is noted that the closest prior art, Witkowski et al. (US 2003/0202520 A1) discloses “(par. 0148), In decision step 1808, a determination is made whether to forward the ingress packet to the LCP (1704 of FIG. 17a) or to forward the frame directly towards an egress port through the SFS. The NP (1702 of FIG. 17a) makes this determination by examining several fields in the header of the frame including the destination address, source address, protocol type, flags, etc. If the destination address specifies one of the protocol or control services provided internally by the storage network switch, then the frame may be forwarded to the LCP. If the frame has protocol violations (e.g., incorrectly set fields), the packet may be dropped or forwarded to the LCP for error processing. If the frame's destination address and the sources' address do not reside in the same zone on the switch (i.e., the addresses have not been configured by the administrator to allow communication between the two devices represented by the two addresses), the frame may be dropped or forwarded to the LCP for error processing. If none of the above cases occurs, then the NP determines the proper egress port for the destination address and the frame is forwarded to the switch fabric subsystem for transmission to the proper IOS for that egress port”.
However, Witkowski fails to disclose at least the claim limitations “determining that a destination of the data, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address, is within the network element; determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address; in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting one or more processes in a memory of the network element”. Thus, Witkowski does not disclose or render obvious the above underlined limitations as claimed. Claims 2-5, 7-10 are also allowed since they depend on claims 1 and 6 respectively.
Claim 11 is allowed over the prior art of record because the Examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art reference which teach the limitation “determining the location of a destination of the data in a frame, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address; determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address; in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting an egress port from among a plurality of egress ports leading toward the indicated location of the destination of the data” with respect to the additional claimed subject matter and in particular the specific boundaries as recited in the claim. It is noted that the closest prior art, Witkowski et al. (US 2003/0202520 A1) discloses “(par. 0148), In decision step 1808, a determination is made whether to forward the ingress packet to the LCP (1704 of FIG. 17a) or to forward the frame directly towards an egress port through the SFS. The NP (1702 of FIG. 17a) makes this determination by examining several fields in the header of the frame including the destination address, source address, protocol type, flags, etc. If the destination address specifies one of the protocol or control services provided internally by the storage network switch, then the frame may be forwarded to the LCP. If the frame has protocol violations (e.g., incorrectly set fields), the packet may be dropped or forwarded to the LCP for error processing. If the frame's destination address and the sources' address do not reside in the same zone on the switch (i.e., the addresses have not been configured by the administrator to allow communication between the two devices represented by the two addresses), the frame may be dropped or forwarded to the LCP for error processing. If none of the above cases occurs, then the NP determines the proper egress port for the destination address and the frame is forwarded to the switch fabric subsystem for transmission to the proper IOS for that egress port”.
However, Witkowski fails to disclose at least the claim limitations “determining the location of a destination of the data in a frame, as indicated by a destination zone identifier within the destination address; determining a flow parameter set, found within one or more of the destination address and source address; in accordance with the flow parameter set, selecting an egress port from among a plurality of egress ports leading toward the indicated location of the destination of the data”. Thus, Witkowski does not disclose or render obvious the above underlined limitations as claimed. Claims 12-20 are also allowed since they depend on claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
Jacobson et al. (US 2010/0195655 A1)
LEE et al. (US 2010/0054251 A1)
Clear et al. (US 2002/0101868 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417