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 filed 01/16/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1, 10, and 17
have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner agrees Lusted does not teach establishing a sacrificial period during LNI; intentionally suspending error correction; observing errors without correction; or permitting errors to occur uncorrected to prevent link retraining loops individually. Lusted does teach determining when to use error correction, which can be before or after LNI. (Lusted: Page 10, Paragraph 3: To enable dynamic resolution of FEC states and/or FEC modes during a data mode period) According to the present disclosure, “the suspended error correction is link-level replay.” [026] Rothermel has been shown to teach link-level replay which makes the suspension of error correction possible. Rothermel specifically mention the use of link-level replay to control speed and performance. (Rothermel: 0010, Link level replay introduces higher latency if the bit error ratio on the link is too high or the delay (length) of the link is too high. By combining forward error correction and replay methods, the latency typically introduced by each correction method individually may be reduced such that efficient data transmission on long channels with high bit error ratio levels may be achieved.) With the sacrificial period being defined as “extension of the training period prior to mission mode,” [022] one skilled in the art could combine the two arts to conclude the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 11, the claim says error correction is suspended and not the replay. This allows the rejection to stand and for the same reasons mentioned above Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the claim.
Claims 2 – 9 which depend from amended claim 1, have been considered and rejected.
Claims 11 – 16 which depend from amended claim 10, have been considered and rejected.
Claims 18 – 20 which depend from amended claim 17, have been considered and rejected.
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) 1 – 9 & 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted (WO 2014/011224 A1) in view of Rothermel (US 2018/0091332 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Lusted teaches:
A method of sacrificial link operation during link negotiation and initialization, the method comprising (Abstract: a method for resolving a forward error correction (FEC) protocol. The method includes requesting, by a network node element during an auto- negotiation period between the node element and a link partner); transmitting, by a link manager of a switch in a high-performance computing system (Page 3, paragraph 1: The link partner 118 and/or node element 102 may represent a computer node element (e.g., host server system), switch), administered by the local link manager, receiving, by the link manager, a sacrificial mode parameter for a link partner, establishing, by the link manager during link negotiation and initialization(Lusted: Fig. 1 and the corresponding specification: Network controller 104 is also generally configured to perform various operations in a defined order when a link is first established with the link partner 118 (e.g., upon system initialization, establishing a new link with the link partner, etc). Such operations may include, for example, an auto-negotiation period during which various capabilities of the node 102 and the link partner 118 are exchanged, followed by a link training period during which the quality of the communications link 126 may be determined, followed by a link up state, or data mode, when data frames/packets are exchanged between the node 102 and link partner 118), a local sacrificial period in dependence upon the local sacrificial mode parameter and the received sacrificial mode parameter of the link partner (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner is determined); and operating one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period including suspending error correction (Page 2, paragraph 1: during the data mode period, whether to enable or disable at least one FEC mode).
Lusted fails to teach:
a local sacrificial mode parameter for one or more ports;
However, Rothermel teaches:
a local sacrificial mode parameter for one or more ports (0017, A switch chip 106 channels incoming data flow from multiple input ports to the appropriate output port for its destination);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to modify the method of sacrificial link operation during link negotiation and initialization of Lusted with the teaching of Rothermel, which teaches one or more ports in order to transmit instruction through of the network infrastructure (0017, the adapter converts CPU instructions into a fabrics protocol for transmitting data over the network).
With regards to claim 2, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1:
wherein operating one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period includes determining that link training is over and suspending error correction during the sacrificial period (Page 18, paragraph 1: FEC mode during the data mode period, operations may also include enabling a specified FEC mode during the auto-negotiation period).
With regards to claim 3, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1:
wherein operating one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period includes determining that the sacrificial period is over and transitioning the one or more ports from sacrificial mode to mission mode (Page 1, paragraph 3: to resolve at least one FEC mode during a data mode period).
With regards to claim 4, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1:
wherein each sacrificial mode parameter comprises a timeout period and establishing a local sacrificial period in dependence upon the local sacrificial mode parameter and the received sacrificial mode parameter of the link partner further comprises selecting the longest timeout period (Page 5, paragraph 2: the link partner 118 is configured to communicate to the node 102 the defined set capabilities of the link partner 118. The exchange of capabilities between the node 102 and link partner 118 occurs within a defined auto-negotiation time period; “light" and "heavy" FEC modes).
With regards to claim 5, Lusted fails to teach:
wherein the suspended error correction includes link-level replay.
However, Rothermel teaches:
wherein the suspended error correction is link-level replay (Rothermel: 0009, each chip including link level forward error correction and link level replay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to modify the system to operate one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period including suspending error correction of Lusted with the teaching of Rothermel, which teaches the suspended error correction is link-level replay in order to correct errors while maintaining low latency in high performance computing systems. (Rothermel: 0010)
With regards to claim 6, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1:
wherein suspending error correction includes preventing returning to link negotiation and initialization due to received errors during the sacrificial period (Page 13, paragraph 3: To prevent data disruption between the node 102 and the link partner 118 when an FEC mode is enabled or disabled during the data mode period).
With regards to claim 7, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1:
wherein suspending error correction includes preventing a link from going down due to received errors during the sacrificial period (Page 2, paragraph 1: disable at least one FEC protocol during a data mode period).
With regards to claim 8, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1.
Lusted teaches:
wherein suspending error correction includes observing errors without correcting them during the sacrificial period (Page 5, paragraph 2: the FEC module 112 may be configured to operate a "heavy" FEC mode in which the coding gain is set to a maximal or high threshold. The "light" FEC mode may generally offer reduced processing burden and less error correction and detection (hence lower latency and power) over the "heavy" FEC mode, at the possible expense of increased packet errors. As another example, the FEC module 112 may contain multiple FEC modes and may be configured to operate with appropriate FEC mode that is optimized for a given medium).
With regards to claim 9, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the method of claim 1:
further comprising negotiating between link partners to enable sacrificial mode during link negotiation (Lusted: Page 2, paragraph 1: the auto-negotiation period occurs before the data mode period; determining, by the network node element during the data mode period, at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network node element and the link partner).
With regards to claim 17, Lusted teaches:
wherein the management processor comprises a link manager comprising logic configured to (Fig. 5 and corresponding specification: Node 102 and/or link partner 118 may further include an operating system (OS, not shown) to manage system resources and control tasks that are run on, e.g., node 102) : establish during link negotiation and initialization (Lusted: Fig. 1 and the corresponding specification: Network controller 104 is also generally configured to perform various operations in a defined order when a link is first established with the link partner 118 (e.g., upon system initialization, establishing a new link with the link partner, etc). Such operations may include, for example, an auto-negotiation period during which various capabilities of the node 102 and the link partner 118 are exchanged, followed by a link training period during which the quality of the communications link 126 may be determined, followed by a link up state, or data mode, when data frames/packets are exchanged between the node 102 and link partner 118), a sacrificial period in dependence upon a local sacrificial mode parameter and a received sacrificial mode parameter of a link partner (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner is determined); and operate one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period including suspending error correction (Page 2, paragraph 1: during the data mode period, whether to enable or disable at least one FEC mode).
Lusted fails to teach:
A host fabric adapter, the host fabric adapter comprising: at least one fabric port comprising a management processor, a serializer/deserializer; a receive controller and a transmit controller;
However, Rothermel teaches:
A host fabric adapter, the host fabric adapter comprising: at least one fabric port comprising a management processor, a serializer/deserializer; a receive controller and a transmit controller; (0027, Adapter chip 202, 244 may include a serializer/deserializer (SerDes) engine 218, 260, which may include SerDes transmitter 220, 262 and SerDes receiver 222, 264):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to modify the method of sacrificial link operation of Lusted with the teaching of Rothermel, which teaches a host fabric adapter in order to improve reliability and performance of computer networks.
With regards to claim 18, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the host fabric adapter of claim 17. Lusted fails to teach:
wherein the suspended error correction includes link-level replay.
However, Rothermel teaches:
wherein the suspended error correction is link-level replay (Rothermel: 0009, each chip including link level forward error correction and link level replay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to modify the system to operate one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period including suspending error correction of Lusted with the teaching of Rothermel, which teaches the suspended error correction is link-level replay in order to correct errors while maintaining low latency in high performance computing systems. (Rothermel: 0010)
With regards to claim 19, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the host fabric adapter of claim 17. Lusted teaches:
wherein suspending error correction includes observing errors without correcting them during the sacrificial period (Page 5, paragraph 2: the FEC module 112 may be configured to operate a "heavy" FEC mode in which the coding gain is set to a maximal or high threshold. The "light" FEC mode may generally offer reduced processing burden and less error correction and detection (hence lower latency and power) over the "heavy" FEC mode, at the possible expense of increased packet errors. As another example, the FEC module 112 may contain multiple FEC modes and may be configured to operate with appropriate FEC mode that is optimized for a given medium).
With regards to claim 20, Lusted in view of Rothermel teaches the host fabric adapter of claim 17. Lusted teaches:
wherein the link manager includes logic configured to enable sacrificial mode after link negotiation (Lusted: Page 2, paragraph 1: the auto-negotiation period occurs before the data mode period; determining, by the network node element during the data mode period, at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network node element and the link partner).
Claim(s) 10, 12 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted (WO 2014/011224 A1) in view of Berman (US 6185203 B1).
With regards to claim 10, Lusted teaches:
A switch, the switch comprising: at least two ports (Page 3, paragraph 1: The link partner 118 and/or node element 102 may represent a computer node element (e.g., host server system), switch); and a control port comprising a management processor (Page 3, paragraph 2: Network controller 104 is also generally configured to perform various operations in a defined order when a link is first established with the link partner), wherein the management processor comprises a link manager comprising logic configured to (Page 20, paragraph 3: The host processor may include one or more processor cores and may be configured to execute system software): establish, during link negotiation and initialization (Lusted: Fig. 1 and the corresponding specification: Network controller 104 is also generally configured to perform various operations in a defined order when a link is first established with the link partner 118 (e.g., upon system initialization, establishing a new link with the link partner, etc). Such operations may include, for example, an auto-negotiation period during which various capabilities of the node 102 and the link partner 118 are exchanged, followed by a link training period during which the quality of the communications link 126 may be determined, followed by a link up state, or data mode, when data frames/packets are exchanged between the node 102 and link partner 118), a sacrificial period in dependence upon a local sacrificial mode parameter and a received sacrificial mode parameter of a link partner (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner is determined); and operate one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period including suspending error correction (Page 2, paragraph 1: during the data mode period, whether to enable or disable at least one FEC mode).
Lusted fails to teach:
a switch core;
However, Berman teaches:
a switch core (Berman: 69, forwards the frame to the switch core);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to modify the system the switch of Lusted with the teaching of Berman, which teaches a switch core in order to support the data transfer as an essential part of the network infrastructure.
With regards to claim 12, Lusted in view of Berman teaches the switch of claim 10.
Lusted further teaches:
wherein the link manager administers the operation of a single port (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner is determined).
With regards to claim 13, Lusted in view of Berman teaches the switch of claim 10.
Lusted further teaches:
wherein the link manager administers the operation of a plurality of ports (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner).
With regards to claim 14, Lusted in view of Berman teaches the switch of claim 13.
Lusted further teaches:
wherein establishing a sacrificial period in dependence upon a local sacrificial mode parameter and a received sacrificial mode parameter of a link partner further comprises establishing a sacrificial period for each port administered by the link manager (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner is determined; during the data mode period).
With regards to claim 15, Lusted in view of Berman teaches the switch of claim 13.
Lusted further teaches:
wherein establishing a sacrificial period in dependence upon a local sacrificial mode parameter and a received sacrificial mode parameter of a link partner further comprises establishing a single sacrificial period for all ports administered by the link manager (Page 2, paragraph 1: at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network controller and the link partner is determined; during the data mode period).
With regards to claim 16, Lusted in view of Berman teaches the switch of claim 13.
Lusted further teaches:
wherein the link manager includes logic configured to enable sacrificial mode after link negotiation (Lusted: Page 2, paragraph 1: the auto-negotiation period occurs before the data mode period; determining, by the network node element during the data mode period, at least one channel quality parameter of at least one channel of a communication link between the network node element and the link partner).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted (WO 2014/011224 A1) in view of Berman (US 6185203 B1) in view of Rothermel (US 2018/0091332 A1).
With regards to claim 11, Lusted in view of Berman teaches the switch of claim 10.
Lusted in view of Berman fails to teach:
wherein the suspended error correction is link-level replay
However, Rothermel teaches:
wherein the suspended error correction is link-level replay (Rothermel: 0009, each chip including link level forward error correction and link level replay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
effectively filed to modify the system to operate one or more ports in sacrificial mode for the sacrificial period including suspending error correction of Lusted with the teaching of Rothermel, which teaches the suspended error correction is link-level replay in order to correct errors while maintaining low latency in high performance computing systems. (Rothermel: 0010)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
Claims 1 - 9 & 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted (WO 2014/011224 Al) in view of Rothermel (US 2018/0091332 Al). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. The independent claims are directed to sacrificial link operation during link negotiation and initialization (LNI). In particular, the claims require (1) establishing, during LNI, a sacrificial period based on mutually exchanged sacrificial mode parameters between link partners; and (2) operating one or more ports in a sacrificial mode during the sacrificial period, including suspending error correction. As described in the specification, the sacrificial mode addresses a specific problem arising during the transition from link training to mission mode, namely transient error bursts that can cause links to erroneously re-enter training and become trapped in oscillatory link-up failures. The claimed solution intentionally tolerates such transient errors for a negotiated sacrificial period in order to stabilize the link before mission mode operation. This claimed behavior occurs before mission mode, and is fundamentally different from error correction techniques applied during steady-state data transmission. Lusted is directed to network systems that dynamically enable, disable, or adjust forward error correction (FEC) during a data mode based on measured channel quality parameters such as bit error rate or signal-to-noise ratio. Lusted's FEC decisions are expressly made to preserve data integrity during active data transmission.
Critically, Lusted does not disclose or suggest establishing a sacrificial period during LNI; intentionally suspending error correction; observing errors without correction; or permitting errors to occur uncorrected to prevent link retraining loops.
To the contrary, Lusted's teachings are premised on the assumption that error correction should be continuously applied and adaptively tuned to maintain reliable communication. Lusted therefore teaches away from intentionally suspending error correction, particularly during a sensitive phase such as link establishment.
Notably, the Office Action has previously acknowledged that Lusted's error correction techniques operate after link establishment and do not address link negotiation and initialization behavior.
Rothermel is directed to a hybrid error correction architecture in which forward error correction and link- level replay are selectively employed during data transmission based on an error threshold. Rothermel's central premise is that errors must always be addressed by at least one active correction mechanism, either FEC or replay. Rothermel does not disclose or suggest (1) suspending both FEC and replay; (2) intentionally tolerating errors without correction; (3) a sacrificial operational state; or (4) any behavior occurring during link negotiation and initialization rather than data mode. Thus, even when combined with Lusted, Rothermel reinforces the conventional wisdom that error correction mechanisms should remain active, and provides no teaching or suggestion to intentionally disable such mechanisms during LNI.
Rothermel does not identify transient error bursts during the training-to-mission transition as a problem, nor does it suggest that error correction mechanisms themselves can destabilize link bring-up.
The Office Action does not articulate a reasoned motivation explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would intentionally suspend error correction mechanisms expressly designed to prevent link failure. Neither Lusted nor Rothermel identifies link negotiation oscillation as a problem, nor proposes tolerating transient errors as a solution.
The Office Action further fails to explain why a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that suspending error correction during link negotiation would improve link stability, particularly in view of the cited art's emphasis on preserving data integrity.
Any assertion that a skilled artisan would modify the cited systems to suspend error correction during LNI is based solely on hindsight knowledge of Applicant's invention. Such hindsight reconstruction is improper under 35 U.S.C. §103 and fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-9, & 17-20 is improper and should be withdrawn.
Claim(s) 10, 12- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted (WO 2014/011224 Al) in view of Berman (US 6185203 B1). Berman is directed to legacy Fibre Channel switching fabrics, focusing on routing, buffering, arbitration, and blocked route handling in steady-state operation. Berman does not address (1) link negotiation and initialization as claimed; (2) error correction suspension; (3) negotiated sacrificial periods; or (4) preventing retraining loops during link bring-up.
Berman is cited, at most, for generic switch architecture, which does not remedy the deficiencies of Lusted with respect to the claimed sacrificial link operation. The combination of Lusted and Berman therefore fails to disclose or suggest the claimed subject matter.
Berman addresses steady-state Fibre Channel routing behavior and is directed to a different technological problem than the link bring-up instability addressed by the present claims.
The cited references, whether considered individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the claimed sacrificial link operation during link negotiation and initialization. The Office Action relies on impermissible hindsight and conflates data-mode error correction techniques with pre-mission link stabilization behavior.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the §103 rejections of claims 10 & 12-16 are improper and should be withdrawn.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lusted (WO 2014/011224 A1) in view of Berman (US 6185203 B1) in view of Rothermel (US 2018/0091332 A1). Applicant traverses this rejection. Claim 11 further specifies that the suspended error correction comprises link-level replay. While Rothermel discloses link-level replay as a mechanism for correcting errors during data transmission, Rothermel relies on replay as a fail-safe reliability feature and does not disclose or suggest suspending replay. To the contrary, Rothermel teaches that replay should be invoked when other correction mechanisms are insufficient.
Neither Lusted nor Berman remedy this deficiency. Lusted similarly relies on error correction mechanisms during data mode and does not contemplate disabling replay, and Berman is silent as to replay, sacrificial operation, or link negotiation behavior. The Office Action therefore fails to articulate a reasoned motivation for suspending link-level replay during link negotiation and initialization.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper and should be withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VICTOR PERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-6319. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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,
Mark Featherstone can be reached on (571) 270-3750. 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
3/19/2026