DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 10/14/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 7-12, 14, 17-18 and 20 have been amended, claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled and claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are pending.
The Amendment to the Title filed 10/14/25 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments have overcome the previously presented Claim Objections and 35 USC § 101 Claim Rejections.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, 14-17 and 20-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dubey does not teach “obtaining, based on the sampling cycle and the second occupancy, a first duration for a second communication apparatus to stop sending data to the first communication apparatus, wherein the first duration is less than or equal to the sampling cycle” as recited in the amended claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in amended claims 12 and 20. However, the examiner respectfully traverses. Dubey discloses that in response to a buffer full signal, a queue controller issues an Xoff signal to instruct a remote sender to discontinue sending packets to the queue. Upon completion of the transmission of the Xoff signal, a wait period occurs for the link controller prior to rechecking the status of the queue controller signal for the queue experiencing the buffer full condition ([0021]-[0024]). In other words, the wait period recited in Dubey corresponds to the first duration for a second communication apparatus (remote sender) to stop sending data to the first communication apparatus (apparatus comprising the queue) because the wait period controls when the next sampling cycle will occur at which the status of the queue is determined and an Xon or Xoff signal is sent to the remote sender in order to instruct the remote sender to discontinue or resume sending packets. Furthermore, claim 3 clearly defines the first duration as a timer. Based on the teachings recited above and the explanation provided, Dubey does in fact teach the claimed subject matter.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the Objection to the Title and the Claim Objections listed in the paragraph(s) below are corrected and the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner suggests the following title: “TRANSMISSION CONTROL METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING DURATION TO STOP SENDING DATA BASED ON BUFFER OCCUPANCY.”
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…wherein the instructions…” in claim 21, lines 1-2, should be “…wherein the computer-executable instructions…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-12, 14, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Dubey” (US PGPUB 2011/0286335).
With respect to claim 1, Dubey teaches a method (Abstract), comprising:
obtaining a sampling cycle, wherein the sampling cycle is a time interval at which a first communication apparatus samples a first occupancy of a first buffer (determining a time period for waiting before checking a status of a queue/buffer status signal. The queue/buffer status signal indicates a percentage of the full level for the queue/buffer; [0021]-[0024]), and wherein the first buffer stores a first data packet of a first priority (providing a priority based flow control to support multiple priority queues/buffers, where a dedicated queue controller is provided for each queue/buffer; [0017], [0021], [0024]);
obtaining, based on the sampling cycle, a second occupancy of the first buffer at a first sampling moment (receive a pulse that indicates a corresponding queue or ingress buffer is full; [0021]-[0024]);
obtaining, based on the sampling cycle and the second occupancy, a first duration for a second communication apparatus to stop sending data to the first communication apparatus (a wait period occurs for the link controller prior to rechecking the status of the queue controller signal for the queue experiencing the buffer full condition; [0021]-[0024]), wherein the first duration is less than or equal to the sampling cycle (upon expiration of the first wait period, the level of ingress_buffer_full signal is sampled; [0021]-[0024]); and
sending, based on the first duration and to the second communication apparatus, first indication information, wherein the first indication information is configured to control the first duration (when the signal transitions from a logical low value to a logical high value, this may indicate that the buffer/queue has reached a full limit. In turn, the corresponding queue controller issues a signal, such as a queue status signal to link controller that triggers the link controller to instruct the remote sender to discontinue sending packets to the queue; [0021]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 3, Dubey teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: starting a timer, wherein a timing duration of the timer is the first duration; determining that the timer has expired; and sending, in response to determining that the timer has expired, second indication information to the second communication apparatus, wherein the second indication information instructs the second communication apparatus to send a second data packet (upon expiration of a first wait period, the level of ingress_buffer_full signal is sampled and as the level remains at a logical high level, an Xoff transmission results followed by a second wait period. Upon expiration of the second wait period, waveform has transitioned to a logical low value and Xon is transmitted to indicate that buffer can continue to receive data. An Xon signal is transmitted to the remote sender in order to instruct the remote sender to continue sending packets; [0021]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 6, Dubey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first duration comprises obtaining, further based on at least one of a data receiving rate of a port of the first communication apparatus, a rate at which the first communication apparatus receives the first data packet, a cumulative time for which the second communication apparatus is allowed to send a second data packet within 2T time before the first sampling moment, or a size of the first buffer, the first duration, and wherein T indicates a unidirectional transmission delay of data transmission between the first communication apparatus and the second communication apparatus (upon expiration of a first wait period, the level of ingress_buffer_full signal is sampled and as the level remains at a logical high level, an Xoff transmission results followed by a second wait period. Upon expiration of the second wait period, waveform has transitioned to a logical low value and Xon is transmitted to indicate that buffer can continue to receive data. An Xon signal is transmitted to the remote sender in order to instruct the remote sender to continue sending packets; [0021]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 10, Dubey teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the first duration is greater than 0; and sending the first indication information in response to determining that the first duration is greater than 0 (upon expiration of a first wait period, the level of ingress_buffer_full signal is sampled and as the level remains at a logical high level, an Xoff transmission results followed by a second wait period. Upon expiration of the second wait period, waveform has transitioned to a logical low value and Xon is transmitted to indicate that buffer can continue to receive data. An Xon signal is transmitted to the remote sender in order to instruct the remote sender to continue sending packets; [0021]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 11, Dubey teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: determining that the first duration is equal to 0; and sending, to the second communication apparatus, second indication information in response to determining that the first duration is equal to 0, wherein the second indication information instructs the second communication apparatus to send a second data packet (upon expiration of a first wait period, the level of ingress_buffer_full signal is sampled and as the level remains at a logical high level, an Xoff transmission results followed by a second wait period. Upon expiration of the second wait period, waveform has transitioned to a logical low value and Xon is transmitted to indicate that buffer can continue to receive data. An Xon signal is transmitted to the remote sender in order to instruct the remote sender to continue sending packets; [0021]-[0024]).
The limitations of claims 12, 14 and 17 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 3 and 6 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis. Furthermore, Dubey discloses an apparatus comprising memory and processor(s) ([0028]) as recited in claim 12.
The limitations of claims 20-21 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 and 3 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
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 of this title, 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 4-5, 15-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey in view of “Kwan et al.” (US PGPUB 2006/0092845) (Hereinafter Kwan).
With respect to claim 4, Dubey teaches the method of claim 3. Dubey does not teach wherein the first indication information comprises a second duration, and wherein the second duration is a maximum duration for the second communication apparatus to stop sending the data.
However, Kwan teaches wherein the first indication information comprises a second duration, and wherein the second duration is a maximum duration for the second communication apparatus to stop sending the data (a message will be referred to as an Xoff message, indicative of a need to pause transmission of a data packet for a particular priority. The message includes a timeout value, which is a value used by a flow control receiver to set a pause timer, which is used to limit the amount of time that the Xoff event is in effect; [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate setting a maximum duration to stop sending data to Dubey because Dubey discloses setting a wait period ([0023]) and Kwan suggests setting a maximum duration to stop sending data ([0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kwan in the Dubey system in order to avoid buffer starvation.
With respect to claim 5, Dubey teaches the method of claim 1. Dubey does not teach wherein the first indication information comprises the first duration.
However, Kwan teaches wherein the first indication information comprises the first duration (a message includes a class of service (COS) number and a timer value. When the timer value is set to a non-zero value, the action associated with the COS would be an Xoff for the time specified in the timer value field; [0036]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sending information comprising a duration to stop sending data to Dubey because Dubey discloses setting a wait period ([0023]) and Kwan suggests sending information comprising a duration to stop sending data ([0036]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kwan in the Dubey system in order to avoid buffer starvation.
The limitations of claims 15-16 are rejected in the analysis of claims 4-5 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claim 22 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Williams et al. US 2002/0087723. Discloses suspending data transmissions based on an identified type of congestion.
Jain et al. US 2012/0147747. Discloses applying flow control using the priority of the frame of traffic.
Jain. US 2013/0301409. Discloses tagging of frames indicating the traffic that should be paused.
Kotha et al. US 2011/0261686. Discloses enabling traffic for a particular source to be paused on a particular priority queue.
Godbole et al. US 2010/0061390. Discloses defining a flow control signal related to a transmit queue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
October 29, 2025
Prosecution Insights