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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
4. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US Patent Number 11,343,207, hereinafter “Evans”) in view of Na et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0023724, hereinafter “Na”).
5. As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Evans teaches a system, device and method, comprising: a shared buffer (shared buffer 254, figure 2), including a plurality of buffer portions (partitioned buffer 254, figure 2, column 4, line 7); and a plurality of ports (ports 252, figure 2).
Evans does not appear to explicitly disclose a forwarding database that dynamically binds a first port of the plurality of ports with at least one buffer portion of the plurality of buffer portions based on a location of a target port associated with the first port.
However, Na discloses a forwarding database (FDB 100, figure 1) that dynamically binds (FDB dynamically binds/learn and remove, paragraphs 26 and 27, and 32) a first port of the plurality of ports with at least one buffer portion of the plurality of buffer portions (figures 3 and 5 mapping the port tree for FDB entry to identify host location connected to port, paragraph 3, ) based on a location of a target port (target port 130, figure 1) associated with the first port (figure 7, target port location based association, returning egress port number in light of figures and claim 1 of Na).
Evans and Na are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of network switch management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Evans and Na before him or her, to modify the buffer allocation of Evans to include the FDB of Na because they are known elements in network switch design architecture.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance efficiency of switch performance (paragraphs 2 – 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Na with Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
6. Evans modified by the teachings of Na as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 2, 9, and 16, Evans teaches a system, device and method, wherein the at least one buffer portion is a closest available buffer portion to the target port (traffic optimization for packet to port transmission, column 4, lines 10 – 31).
7. Evans modified by the teachings of Na as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 3, 10, and 17, Evans teaches a system, device and method, wherein the plurality of buffer portions are distributed among different physical locations within a device (tiered shared buffer memory structure of a network, figure 3).
8. Evans modified by the teachings of Na as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 4, 13, and 18, Evans teaches a system, device and method, wherein the device comprises a network switch (network switch 200, figure 2).
9. Evans modified by the teachings of Na as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 5, 11, and 19, Evans teaches a system, device and method, wherein each forwarding database is determined, at least in part, based on reducing latency and maintaining minimum requirements of the shared buffer (minimizing packet loss or minimize packet loss rate while handling traffic optimization, column 4, lines 3 – 31).
10. Evans modified by the teachings of Na as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 6, 12, and 20, Evans teaches a system, device and method, wherein the first port corresponds to an ingress port of a network switch and the target port corresponds to an egress port of the network switch (ingress/egress ports 252, figure 2, column 4, line 5).
11. Evans modified by the teachings of Na as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 7 and 14, Evans teaches a system and device, wherein the plurality of ports correspond to ingress ports of a network switch and the target port corresponds to an egress port of the network switch (ingress/egress ports 252, figure 2, column 4, line 5).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection in view of Na does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Amemiya/Beier/Schroder/Turgeman has teachings of forwarding database with dynamic buffer and port management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURANGZEB HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM to 3 PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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.
AH
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights