DETAILED ACTION
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 March 11, 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presented the argument that Woodberg does not disclose the limitation “detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in a current traffic” as recited in amended claims 1 and 11. (REMARKS, page 7)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant emphasizes that “Woodberg does not teach that network device determines what the network traffic is associated with according to the packet(s) in the current traffic,” the Examiner maintains that Woodberg does teach what the network traffic is associated with according to the packet(s) in the current traffic. Woodberg (in [Col. 7, lines 40-43]) teaches that the network device determines what the network traffic is associated with (e.g. an education resource, video streaming service) according to the URL associated with the network traffic. The Examiner maintains the rejection for claim 1, where specifically “a detecting module,…, for detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in a current traffic” is taught, as Woodberg performs detection in an L-7 module, which performs L-7 inspection (also referred to as application-level or deep packet inspection). The Examiner does not agree with the Applicant because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that L-7 inspection would be performed on one or more packets and that it is known by one of ordinary skill in the art that L-7 inspection requires looking beyond network headers into the payload to understand application specific data, such as URLs.
The Applicant further presented the argument that Chuang does not disclose the limitation “determining a first traffic threshold and a second traffic threshold according to the current application scenario” as recited in amended claims 1 and 11 (REMARKS, page 8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the applicant emphasizes that “Chuang does not teach that the system determines the maximum percentage of the HTTP traffic and the TLS traffic according to the current application scenario,” the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Chuang explicitly discloses monitoring network traffic using packet-level metrics, including number of packets, packet sizes, and processing time, and classifying traffic based on protocol type. Since different applications are associated with distinct protocols and corresponding packet characteristics, classification of traffic based on packet-derived metrics and protocol type reasonably corresponds to identifying a traffic usage context or application scenario. Therefore, Chuang's disclosure of analyzing packet-level characteristics to classify traffic teaches or at least suggests detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in current traffic (Chuang, [0068-0070]).
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 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determination module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2019/0014009 A1, hereinafter "Chuang"), in view of Connor et al. (US 20210041929 A1, hereinafter “Connor”), and in further view of Woodberg et al. (US 10171423 B1, hereinafter “Woodberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang teaches a communication device, comprising:
a determination module (throughput threshold mapping mod 365, FIG. 5), coupled to the detecting module (protocol complexity monitoring mod 360, FIG. 5), for determining a first traffic threshold and a second traffic threshold according to the current application scenario, wherein the first traffic threshold is greater than the second traffic threshold (Throughput threshold mapping module 365 (see FIG. 5) establishes a set of thresholds for traffic of protocols of interest. A threshold (first threshold) is set, that if exceeded, means additional resources are need. Another threshold (second threshold) is set, that if fallen below, means resources will be withdrawn to minimize waste. This indicates that the first threshold is greater than the second threshold. Maximum percentages of traffic associated with a current application scenario (read as HTTP traffic and TLS traffic [0071]) are used by a throughput threshold mapping module (determination module) to establish a set of thresholds. These thresholds are determined based on traffic characteristics associated with particular protocol types (e.g. HTTP, TLS, etc.), which correspond to traffic conditions and system operating modes. Since different applications are associated with distinct protocols and corresponding packet characteristics, classification of traffic based on packet-derived metrics and protocol type reasonably corresponds to identifying a traffic usage context or application scenario [0070-0071]);
a comparison module (real-time traffic comparison mod 370, FIG. 5), coupled to the determination module (throughput threshold mapping mod 365, FIG. 5), for comparing the current traffic, the first traffic threshold and the second traffic threshold to generate a comparison result (A real-time traffic comparison module 370 (see FIG. 5) compares against actual traffic against first and second thresholds determined in the throughput threshold mapping module [0072]);
Chuang does not teach:
a detecting module, coupled to
an adjustment module, coupled to the comparison module, for adjusting a first bus bandwidth to a second bus bandwidth according to the comparison result.
In analogous art, Connor teaches an adjustment module, coupled to the comparison module, for adjusting a first bus bandwidth to a second bus bandwidth according to the comparison result (If the traffic has met a threshold (at, below, or above depending on the threshold), the link width (number of lines) and/or data rate used on the link will be adjusted to meet the demands of the increased or decreased traffic. The adjustment will be made by a state machine or protocol logic of the I/O controller (adjustment module) [0066]).
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 bandwidth adjustment module (as taught by Connor) into the device with detecting and determination modules (as taught by Chuang) in order to increase overall power savings with intelligently and dynamically adjusted PCle settings for varying traffic levels (Connor, [0044]).
The combination of Chuang and Connor does not teach a detecting module, coupled to
In analogous art, Woodberg teaches:
a detecting module (inspection module (e.g. L-7 module) [col. 5, lines 8-14]), coupled to (L-7 module connected to decision module [col. 5, lines 8-14])), (the network device may include a decision module for inspecting network traffic to determine which portions of network traffic should be provided to different modules for inspection [col. 5, lines 8-14]) for detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in a current traffic (network inspection may be performed in by the L-7 module as application layer inspection. The L-7 module may classify the first portion of the network traffics and/or determine contextual information regarding the network traffic. The Layer-7 (L-7) module may determine that the network traffic is associated with a streaming video service, an educational resource, or the like, and can be initiated by the device inspecting a URL associated with network traffic. Processors in the device may receive a set of packets, selecting the first or more of the set for an L-7 inspection based on a type of network traffic associated with the first one or more packets [Col. 1, lines 23-32; Col. 3, lines 41-48; Col. 7, lines 40-43]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that L-7 inspection (also referred to as application-level or deep packet inspection) would be performed on one or more packets. It is known by one of ordinary skill in the art that L-7 inspection requires looking beyond network headers into the payload to understand application specific data, such as URLs);
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 detecting module for detecting the current application into the device taught by Chuang and Connor in order to improve network performance with increased throughput and/or decreased latency (Woodberg, [Col. 2, lines 65-67; Col. 3, lines 1-2]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg, specifically Connor, teaches wherein the step of adjusting the first bus bandwidth to the second bus bandwidth according to the comparison result comprises:
determining that the second bus bandwidth is smaller than the first bus bandwidth, when the current traffic is smaller than the second traffic threshold;
determining that the second bus bandwidth is equal to the first bus bandwidth,
when the current traffic is not smaller than the second traffic threshold and the current
traffic is smaller than the first traffic threshold; and
determining that the second bus bandwidth is greater than the first bus bandwidth, when the current traffic is not smaller than the first traffic threshold (In cases of high traffic (where current traffic is greater than the first threshold), the active lanes and/or data rate may be increased (both of which increase bus bandwidth). In cases of low traffic (where current traffic is less than the second threshold), the active lanes and/or data rate may decrease. FIG.7 shows that when current traffic falls between both thresholds, the bandwidth will remain unchanged [0051]).
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 bus adjustment according to the comparison result as taught by Connor into the device taught by the combination of Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to increase overall power savings with intelligently and dynamically adjusted PCIe settings for varying traffic levels (Connor, [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Chuang teaches a method for handling a bus bandwidth, comprising:
determining a first traffic threshold and a second traffic threshold according to the current application scenario, wherein the first traffic threshold is greater than the second traffic threshold (Throughput threshold mapping module 365 (see FIG. 5) establishes a set of thresholds for traffic of protocols of interest. A threshold (first threshold) is set, that if exceeded, means additional resources are need. Another threshold (second threshold) is set, that if fallen below, means resources will be withdrawn to minimize waste. This indicates that the first threshold is greater than the second threshold. Maximum percentages of traffic associated with a current application scenario (read as HTTP traffic and TLS traffic [0071]) are used by a throughput threshold mapping module (determination module) to establish a set of thresholds. These thresholds are determined based on traffic characteristics associated with particular protocol types (e.g. HTTP, TLS, etc.), which correspond to traffic conditions and system operating modes. Since different applications are associated with distinct protocols and corresponding packet characteristics, classification of traffic based on packet-derived metrics and protocol type reasonably corresponds to identifying a traffic usage context or application scenario [0070-0071]);
comparing the current traffic, the first traffic threshold and the second traffic threshold to generate a comparison (the actual traffic is compared against first and second thresholds determined in the throughput threshold mapping (module 370, as seen in FIG. 5, [0072]));
Chuang does not teach:
detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in a current traffic;
adjusting a first bus bandwidth to a second bus bandwidth according to the comparison result.
In analogous art, Connor teaches:
adjusting a first bus bandwidth to a second bus bandwidth according to the comparison result (If the traffic has met a threshold (at, below, or above depending on the threshold), the link width (number of lines) and/or data rate used on the link will be adjusted to meet the demands of the increased or decreased traffic [0066]).
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 bandwidth adjustment taught by Connor into the device taught by Chuang in order to increase overall power savings with intelligently and dynamically adjusted PCIe settings for varying traffic levels (Connor, [0044]).
The combination of Chuang and Connor does not teach detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in a current traffic.
In analogous art, Woodberg teaches:
detecting a current application scenario according to at least one packet in a current traffic (network inspection may be performed in the L-7 module as application layer inspection. The L-7 module may classify the first portion of the network traffics and/or determine contextual information regarding the network traffic. The Layer-7 (L-7) module may determine that the network traffic is associated with a scenario (e.g. streaming video service, an educational resource, or the like), and can be initiated by the device inspecting a URL associated with network traffic. Processors in the device may receive a set of packets, selecting the first or more of the set for an L-7 inspection based on a type of network traffic associated with the first one or more packets [Col. 1, lines 23-32; Col. 3, lines 41-48; Col. 7, lines 40-43]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that L-7 inspection (also referred to as application-level or deep packet inspection) would be performed on one or more packets. It is known by one of ordinary skill in the art that L-7 inspection requires looking beyond network headers into the payload to understand application specific data, e.g. URLs);
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 detecting module for detecting the current application into the device taught by Chuang and Connor in order to improve network performance with increased throughput and/or decreased latency (Woodberg, [Col. 2, lines 65-67; Col. 3, lines 1-2]).
Regarding claim 19, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 9.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg, and in further view of Tsu et al. (US 7426597 B1, hereinafter “Tsu”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg does not teach wherein the current application scenario comprises at least one of a heavy loading mode, a light loading mode and a power saving mode.
In analogous art, Tsu teaches wherein the current application scenario comprises at least one of a heavy loading mode, a light loading mode and a power saving mode (Operating states of a system include a higher performance operating state (all lanes active), at least one state where number of active lanes is greater than 1 but less than all lanes (light bandwidth mode), and (aggressive) power saving mode (only one lane is active) [Col. 12, lines 55-62 ]).
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 operational modes as taught by Tsu into the method taught by the combination of Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chuang, Connor, Woodberg, and Tsu, specifically Tsu, teaches wherein the power saving mode comprises at least one of a radio off mode, an airplane mode, a low power mode, a wake on wireless local area network (WoWLAN) mode and a modern standby mode (a low power mode (which reduces bus bandwidth) is provided in one of the examples as an alternative to an "active" mode [Col 4, lines 55-57]).
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 operational modes as taught by Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chuang, Connor, Woodberg, and Tsu, specifically Tsu, teaches wherein the adjustment module adjusts the first bus bandwidth to a minimum bus bandwidth, when the current application scenario is the power saving mode (The adaptive link controller (150) is what controls the link width and is where the link width will be adjusted. An (aggressive) power saving operating state will cause the link width to be reduced to a minimum level (one active data lane, which directly corresponds to the bandwidth of the bus) [Col 12, lines 50-62]).
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 adjustment module as taught by Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chuang, Connor, Woodberg, and Tsu, specifically Tsu, teaches a communication module, coupled to the adjustment module, for performing a handshake with a host to notify the host of the second bus bandwidth (a hardware or software entity activates (re)negotiation in the endpoint device. End point (client) device and root complex (host) device are both put into configuration states to change the link width, allowing for link width increase/decrease negotiation as shown in FIG. 11. Current link width and the desired new link width (RNCTRL.Maxwidth) are compared. A link reduction or increase will occur if the current link width is higher than the new link width and if the current link width is less than the new link width, respectively [Col 8, lines 55-69; Col 9, lines 28-45]).
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 teachings of Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg does not teach wherein the current application scenario comprises at least one of a heavy loading mode, a light loading mode and a power saving mode.
In analogous art, Tsu teaches wherein the current application scenario comprises at least one of a heavy loading mode, a light loading mode and a power saving mode (Operating states of a system include a higher performance operating state (all lanes active), at least one state where number of active lanes in greater than 1 but less than all lanes (light bandwidth mode), and (aggressive) power saving mode (only one lane is active) [Col. 12, lines 55-62 ]).
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 operational modes as taught by Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chuang, Connor, Woodberg, and Tsu, specifically Tsu, teaches wherein the power saving mode comprises at least one of a radio off mode, an airplane mode, a low power mode, a wake on wireless local area network (WoWLAN) mode and a modern standby mode (a low power mode (which reduces bus bandwidth) is provided in one of the examples as an alternative to an "active" mode [Col 4, lines 55-57]).
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 operational modes as taught by Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chuang, Connor, Woodberg, and Tsu, specifically Tsu, teaches wherein the first bus bandwidth is adjusted to a minimum bus bandwidth, when the current application scenario is the power saving mode (An (aggressive) power saving operating state will cause the link width to be reduced to a minimum level (one active data lane, which directly corresponds to the bandwidth of the bus) [Col 12, lines 50-62].
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 bus bandwidth adjustment when in power saving mode as taught by Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chuang, Connor, Woodberg, and Tsu, specifically Tsu, teaches performing a handshake with a host to notify the host of the second bus bandwidth (End point (client) device and root complex (host) device are both put into configuration states to change the link width, allowing for link width increase/decrease negotiation as shown in FIG. 11. Current link width and the desired new link width (RNCTRL.Maxwidth) are compared. A link reduction or increase will occur if the current link width is higher than the new link width and if the current link width is less than the new link width, respectively [Col 8, lines 55-69; Col 9, lines 28-45]).
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 teachings of Tsu into the method taught by Chuang, Connor, and Woodberg in order to reduce the power consumption of personal computers and other computing devices by adaptively adjusting bus bandwidth in response to bus bandwidth requirements [Tsu; Col. 1, lines 23-58].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jain et al (US 20150006924 A1) discloses a selection of an operating point of a memory physical layer interface and a memory controller based on memory bandwidth utilization.
Levy et al (US 6967921 B1) discloses a method and device for efficient bandwidth management.
Mallikarjunan et al (US 20210392548 A1) discloses a network bandwidth throttling detection and dynamic buffer threshold selection.
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 ALESSANDRA R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3579 EST. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:30.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571)272-7919. 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.
/A.R.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights