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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 05 November 2025, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 11 August 2023 in which claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14, 17-21 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 9-21 are pending in the application.
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 2, 11, is 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. It is indefinite if the claim further limits claim 1 as amended, wherein claim 1 recites determining a port tag field as port types, thus determining the output port type and target port identifier seems repetitive in claim 2.
Claim 3, 12 is 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. It is not clear if ‘the time interval’ in claim 3 is different from that in claim 1 as amended.
Claims 1-7, 9-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is indefinite if the second acquiring step of exemplary claim 1 is repeating the first acquiring step, if the duplicate terms are the same antecedent basis, eg if ‘a communication parameter’ in line 14 is different from line 4.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toumura et al (hereinafter “Toumura”, 2006/0114899) in view of Ford et al (hereinafter “Ford”, 2022/0232111).
As per Claim 1, Toumura discloses a traffic scheduling method, comprising:
acquiring a currently to-be-sent message through a traffic egress switch, and forwarding the message to a programmable switch connected to the traffic egress switch (at least paragraph 57-58; ingress packet processing unit 13-i is comprised of a buffer memory for temporarily storing packets received from the ingress line interface 11-I, an ingress packet processor 22 for converting the ingress packets to internal packets, and an internal switch interface 23 for forwarding the internal packet sent out of the ingress packet processor 22 to the input port of the internal switch unit 16);
acquiring a communication parameter corresponding to the message through the programmable switch, and determining a target port identifier of the message according to the communication parameter (at least paragraph 51-58, 63-65; header of packet (having communication parameters including addresses) analyzed to determine egress interface depending on header);
marking the message according to the target port identifier of the message, and returning the marked message to the traffic egress switch (at least paragraph 57-61; internal header adding function 222 of generating, when the extension flag shown by the register 221 is in the "0" status, an internal header in accordance with an ingress packet classifier table 24 or a regular routing table 25); and
determining a target output port corresponding to the message from a plurality of output ports of the traffic egress switch according to the target port identifier, and sending the message through the target output port (at least paragraph 74-80; egress packet processing of internal switch message, eliminating internal header and sending packet via the egress line determined).
Toumura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the communication parameter comprises a current traffic value and a multivariate communication field of the message, acquiring a communication parameter corresponding to the message through the programmable switch, and determining a target port identifier of the message according to the communication parameter comprises: determining a time interval between the message and a previous message according to the multivariate communication field of the message; determining a port tag field of the message as a charging port type, a buyout port type, or an output port type corresponding to the previous message according to the current traffic value and the time interval between the message and the previous message.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Ford. Ford discloses, in an analogous art, a switch fabric wherein a network traffic classification control policy uses DSCP code points / Ftag (tag fields) and other traffic classification on flows in order to tag and determine the egress port for the message flow based on current network traffic and message flow variables and port and class selection and type, such as preferred port and default best efforts class (at least paragraph 25, 30-33, 107-111, 122-127, 130, 140). Ford discloses using flow ID assignment and teardown and release of the flow ID, as well as a flow-based class (eg. low latency), with flow teardown being large time interval between messages or packets and thus packets not torn down and of a flow using output port of prior packets of flow. And Ford teaches flow channels with congestion determination for flows, where traffic with priority for business-critical applications, for example, when there is no congestion can use any egress port of the switch, but if congestion is high, having dedicated access.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Ford’s switch traffic classification with Toumura as Ford teaches such well known traffic classification and routing that some traffic is more important and prioritized over other traffic when network switch fabrics are busy, thus the egress selection in Toumura being obvious to select based on current traffic volume and not just flow.
As per Claim 2. Toumura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determining the target port identifier of the message according to the communication parameter comprises: determining an output port type corresponding to the message according to the current traffic value and the multivariate communication field of the message; determining the target port identifier of the message from a plurality of port tag fields comprised in the output port type corresponding to the message according to the multivariate communication field of the message.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Ford. Ford discloses, in an analogous art, a switch fabric wherein a network traffic classification control policy uses DSCP code points / Ftag (tag fields) and other traffic classification on flows in order to tag and determine the egress port for the message flow based on current network traffic and message flow variables and port and class selection and type, such as preferred port and default best efforts class (at least paragraph 107-111, 122-126, 130, 140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Ford’s switch traffic classification with Toumura as Ford teaches such well known traffic classification and routing that some traffic is more important and prioritized over other traffic when network switch fabrics are busy, thus the egress selection in Toumura being obvious to select based on current traffic volume and not just flow.
As per Claim 3. The traffic scheduling method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the output port type corresponding to the message according to the current traffic value and the multivariate communication field of the message comprises: determining a flow corresponding to the message according to the multivariate communication field of the message, and acquiring a timestamp corresponding to the previous message of the flow; acquiring a timestamp corresponding to the message, and determining a time interval between the message and the previous message according to the timestamp corresponding to the message and the timestamp corresponding to the previous message; determining the output port type of the message according to the current traffic value and the time interval between the message and the previous message (at least Ford paragraph 25, 122-126, 108; flow ID assignment and teardown and release of flow ID, flow based class eg. low latency).
As per Claim 5. The traffic scheduling method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the output port type of the message according to the current traffic value and the time interval between the message and the previous message comprises: determining whether the current traffic value is greater than a traffic limit threshold, and whether the time interval between the message and the previous message is greater than a time interval threshold; in response to that the current traffic value is greater than the traffic limit threshold, and the time interval is greater than the time interval threshold, determining the port tag field of the message as the charging port type; in response to that the current traffic value is less than or equal to the traffic limit threshold, and the time interval is greater than the time interval threshold, determining the port tag field of the message as the buyout port type; in response to that the time interval is less than or equal to the time interval threshold, determining the port tag field of the message as the output port type corresponding to the previous message (at least Ford paragraph 30-33, 107-111, 122-127; flow channels with congestion determination for flows, where traffic with priority for business critical applications, for example, when there is no congestion can use any egress port of switch but if congestion is high has dedicated access).
As per Claim 6. Toumura fails to explicitly disclose wherein after determining the target output port corresponding to the message from the plurality of output ports of the traffic egress switch according to the target port identifier, the method further comprises: acquiring a current traffic value of the target output port, and determining whether the current traffic value of the target output port is less than or equal to an output port traffic threshold; in response to that the current traffic value of the target output port is less than or equal to the output port traffic threshold, sending the message through the target output port; in response to that the current traffic value of the target output port is greater than the output port traffic threshold, modifying the target port identifier of the message to a default port identifier, and sending the message through an output port corresponding to the default port identifier.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Ford. Ford discloses, in an analogous art, a switch fabric wherein a network traffic classification control policy uses DSCP and other traffic classification on flows in order to route traffic according to class when there is maximum guaranteed latency for particular egress of the switch, else a default best efforts class (at least paragraph 107-111, 122-127). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Ford’s switch traffic classification with Toumura as Ford teaches such well known traffic classification and routing that some traffic is more important and prioritized over other traffic when network switch fabrics are busy, the packet flow is given a class that is attempted to be met else the best effort is given as default, thus the egress selection in Toumura being obvious to select based on current traffic volume and not just flow.
As per Claim 7. The traffic scheduling method according to claim 1, wherein a total bandwidth of a connection between the traffic egress switch and the programmable switch is greater than a total bandwidth of all output ports in the traffic egress switch (at least Fig. 1; internal bandwidth between (13-1…13-n/14-1…14-n) and 16 > than bandwidth between 12-1…12-n and NW1…NWn).
Claims 9-12, 14-18, 20-21 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-3, 5-7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim(s) 4, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toumura in view of Ford, further in view of Ananthapadmanabha et al (hereinafter “Ananthapadmanabha”, 2013/0124707).
Toumura and Ford fail to explicitly disclose wherein the determining the flow corresponding to the message according to the multivariate communication field of the message comprises: obtaining a hash identification code corresponding to the message according to the multivariate communication field of the message, and determining the flow corresponding to the message according to the hash identification code. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Ananthapadmanabha. Ananthapadmanabha discloses, in an analogous art, flow table in switch 103 can be a hash table where flow IDs are hash keys for locating the corresponding flow definitions in the flow table (at least paragraph 15, 48, 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Ananthapadmanabha’s hashed flow IDs with Toumura and Ford as Ananthapadmanabha teaches using the hash value as an index to the flow entry in a table which is well known for efficient data retrieval, important in the context of Toumura and Ford’s switch egress determination in order to at least alleviate and prevent buffer overflows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant did not argue the Ford reference.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443