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 Amendment
The amendments filed on 3/19/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 7, 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant 1st argument
103 rejection
Examiner response to applicant 1st argument:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues Peng does not teach in claim 1 this subject matter “after detecting a specific communication lane of the at least two communication lanes having been changed to a determined status, the data frame whose data transmission is not completed will be divided into subframes”. However, this language is not presented in the claim limitation language. Examiner recommends applicant to add such a language to the claim limitations.
Furthermore, applicant argues that Peng does not teach split a single data frame into subframes and send each subframe over a separate, distinct communication lane simultaneously without providing additional details in the language, however as presented here Peng teaches this subject matter splitting any data frame into a number of subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes with a communication status which is not the determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails). Examiner interprets the flow has different packets that are sent over different link after one link failure detection.
Furthermore, applicant argues that Peng does not teach “This feature requires that, after a lane's status change is detected, the remaining data frames continue to be split into subframes distributed over the lanes that do not have the determined (e.g., failed) status” without providing additional details in the limitation and without this language in the claim examined in the first office action. As presented here and below Peng teaches redistributing the packets of the flow among different links after detecting a failure in one of the links ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails). Furthermore, examiner recommends applicant to add more details to the claim limitations such as the one introduced in the remarks but not introduced in the claim language.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 11: The applicant introduces at least two communication lanes, considering one of the them having specific status, then the applicant recites in the last limitation “splitting any data frame.. into a number of subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes with no determined status“. The number of communication lanes cannot stay at least two with a condition of one communication lane having determined status. This will render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14: Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14 are rejected as they depend on claims 1, 5, 7, and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Peng et al. (“Peng”, US 20190123997 A1) hereinafter Peng, in view of Chen (“Chen”, US 20210211376 A1) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Peng teaches communication interface at a first end of a communication link, the communication interface ([0029-0040] Fig. 1a, Fig. 2, network elements with multiple links connecting the two elements, communication interface with transmitter, receiver and ports) comprising;
at least two communication lanes a logic;
wherein the logic is configured to cooperate with another communication interface at a second end of the communication link to send a data frame to the second end over the at least two communication lanes ([0029-0040] Fig. 1a, Fig. 2, network elements with multiple links connecting the two network elements, communication interface with transmitter, receiver and ports), including splitting the data frame into a number of subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes and sending each of the subframes over one distinct communication lane amongst the at least two communication lanes ([0070-0078] distributing the flow among different links connecting the two network elements before one link fails, table 2),
wherein a quantity of the subframes is equal to a quantity of the at least two communication lanes ([0070-0078] distributing the flow among different links connecting the two network elements before one link fails, table 2, multiple links with multiple flows)
wherein the logic is further configured to:
store a communication lane status for each of the at least two communication lanes ([0062] the first group of member links may be stored in the network element in a form of a member link table)([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3); and
based on detecting that the communication lane status for a specific communication lane of the at least two communication lanes having been changed to a determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable)([0070-0078] tables showing link fails), implement the following:
stopping sending subframes over the specific communication lanes ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails);
splitting any data frame into a number of subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes with a communication status which is not the determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails), and
sending each of the subframes over one distinct communication lane amongst the at least two communication lanes with the communication status which is not the determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails)
Peng does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches
sending the changed communication lane status for the specific communication lane to the communication interface at the second end ([0005-0006] IS-IS uses Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) to exchange routing information between routers. LSP is a packet of information generated by a network router in a link state routing protocol that lists the router's neighbors) ([0010] the nodes along the backup paths flood a link state (either an LSA or LSP) to every live node through the remaining FT and the backup paths to repair the one or more link and/or node failure)([0060-0061] Fig. 1 The FT is used for distributing link state information of each of the routers in the network topology 100 (i.e., LSAs are flooded on the FT for OSPF, LSPs for IS-IS)).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Peng in view of Chen in order to share and distribute link state between routers when there is failed node or link because it provides a faster process for detecting and repairing FT split when multiple failures happen and would result in faster network convergence, which in turn results in less packet loss (Chen [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Peng and Chen teach the communication interface according to claim 1,
Peng teaches
a buffer for each communication ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports,), and
a gate for each communication lane ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports,),
wherein the buffer is configured to input a subframe to be transmitted, over a communication lane associated with the subframe, to associated buffer in the communication interface at the second end ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports, The transmitter 20 may send data through an egress port of the port 50), and
wherein the gate is configured to open to close an input in the buffer of the subframe to be transmitted over the communication lane to the associated buffer in the communication interface at the second end, and the logic further configured to control the gate depending on the communication lane status of the communication lane ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.).
Regarding claim 4, Peng and Chen teach the communication interface according to claim 3,
Peng teaches
wherein the buffer is configured to receive the subframe transmitted over the communication lane from the associated buffer in the communication interface at the second end ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.).
, and
wherein the gate is configured to open or close an output of a subframe received over the communication lane, the logic is configured to control the gate depending on the communication lane status of said communication lane ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7: Peng teaches a method of communication over a communication link comprising at least two communication lanes and having a first end and a second end ([0029-0040] Fig. 1a, Fig. 2, network elements with multiple links connecting the two elements, communication interface with transmitter, receiver and ports), the method comprising:
sending a data frame from the first end to the second end over the communication lanes ([0029-0040] Fig. 1a, Fig. 2, network elements with multiple links connecting the two network elements, communication interface with transmitter, receiver and ports), including:
splitting the data frame into a number of subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes and sending each of the subframes over one distinct communication lane amongst the at least two communication lanes ([0070-0078] distributing the flow among different links connecting the two network elements before one link fails, table 2)
storing, at the first end, a communication lane status for each of the communication lanes ([0062] the first group of member links may be stored in the network element in a form of a member link table)([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3); and
detecting, at the first end, that the communication lane status for a specific communication lane of the at least two communication lanes has changed to a determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable)([0070-0078] tables showing link fails), and
based on detecting, at the first end, that the communication lane status for the specific communication lane having been changed to the determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails),
implementing the following:
stopping sending subframes from the first end to the second end over the specific communication lane ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails);
at the first end, splitting any data frame into a number of subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes with a communication status which is not the determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails), and
sending to the second end each of the subframes over one distinct communication lane amongst the at least two communication lanes with the communication status which is not the determined status ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails)
Peng does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches
sending the changed communication lane status for the specific communication lane, from the first end to the second end ([0005-0006] IS-IS uses Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) to exchange routing information between routers. LSP is a packet of information generated by a network router in a link state routing protocol that lists the router's neighbors) ([0010] the nodes along the backup paths flood a link state (either an LSA or LSP) to every live node through the remaining FT and the backup paths to repair the one or more link and/or node failure)([0060-0061] Fig. 1 The FT is used for distributing link state information of each of the routers in the network topology 100 (i.e., LSAs are flooded on the FT for OSPF, LSPs for IS-IS)).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Peng in view of Chen in order to share and distribute link state between routers when there is failed node or link because it provides a faster process for detecting and repairing FT split when multiple failures happen and would result in faster network convergence, which in turn results in less packet loss (Chen [0010]).
Regarding claim 9: Peng and Chen teach the method according to claim 7,
Peng teaches Wherein for each communication lane ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports,), the method further comprises:
inputting, in a buffer at the first end, a subframe to be transmitted, over a communication lane associated with the subframe, to an associated buffer at the second end ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports, The transmitter 20 may send data through an egress port of the port 50) ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.), and
controlling a gate at the first end to open or close an input in the buffer of the subframe to be transmitted over the communication lane, to the associated buffer at the second end, depending on the communication lane status of the communication lane ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.).
Regarding claim 10: Peng and Chen teach the method according to claim 9,
Peng teaches
outputting, in the buffer at the first end, a subframe received over the communication lane from the associated buffer at the second end ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports, The transmitter 20 may send data through an egress port of the port 50, The receiver 30 may receive data through the input port of the port 50.) ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.), and
controlling the gate at the first end to open or close an output of the received subframe over the communication lane, depending on the communication lane status of the communication lane ([0035-0045] Fig. 2, ports, egress ports, The transmitter 20 may send data through an egress port of the port 50, The receiver 30 may receive data through the input port of the port 50.) ([0082] if the first member link is unavailable, determine a second member link in a second group of member links based on a second decision manner, where all member links in the second group of member links are available, the first group of member links includes the second group of member links and an unavailable member link, and the member link corresponds to a port 50; and a transmitter 20 is configured to send the packet through the port 50 corresponding to the second member link.).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 10.
Claims 2, 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Peng et al. (“Peng”, US 20190123997 A1) hereinafter Peng, and Chen (“Chen”, US 20210211376 A1) hereinafter Chen, in view of Hwang et al. (“Hwang”, US 20200169918 A1) hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 2, Peng and Chen teach the communication interface according to claim 1,
Peng teaches wherein the logic is further configured to cooperate with the communication interface at the second end of the communication link to
receive a data frame from the second end over the communication lanes, a received data frame being split into a number of received subframes associated with the at least two communication lanes ([0070-0078] distributing the flow among different links connecting the two network elements before one link fails, table 2) ([0029-0040] Fig. 1a, Fig. 2, network elements with multiple links connecting the two network elements, communication interface with transmitter, receiver and ports), including
receiving each of the subframes over one distinct communication lane amongst the at least two communication lanes ([0070-0078] distributing the flow among different links connecting the two network elements before one link fails, table 2) ([0029-0040] Fig. 1a, Fig. 2, network elements with multiple links connecting the two network elements, communication interface with transmitter, receiver and ports), and
wherein the logic is further configured to:
stop receiving subframes over the given communication lane ([0040-0051] Fig. 3, determine the first link is unavailable, Send the packet through the second member link.) ([0074-0078] Table, 1, Table 2, Table 3 shows the flow redistribution after link fails);
Peng does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches
receive the determined status as the communication lane status of a given communication lane from the communication interface at the second end, and store the received determined status as the status of the given communication lane ([0005-0006] IS-IS uses Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) to exchange routing information between routers. LSP is a packet of information generated by a network router in a link state routing protocol that lists the router's neighbors) ([0010] the nodes along the backup paths flood a link state (either an LSA or LSP) to every live node through the remaining FT and the backup paths to repair the one or more link and/or node failure)([0060-0061] Fig. 1 The FT is used for distributing link state information of each of the routers in the network topology 100 (i.e., LSAs are flooded on the FT for OSPF, LSPs for IS-IS)).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Peng in view of Chen in order to share and distribute link state between routers when there is failed node or link because it provides a faster process for detecting and repairing FT split when multiple failures happen and would result in faster network convergence, which in turn results in less packet loss. (Chen [0010]).
Peng and Chen do not explicitly teach, but Hwang teaches
merging the received subframes into a received data frame ([0051] Fig. 2, Packet aggregator 320, The packet aggregator 320 of the receiving entity may reorder the out-of-order packets incoming through multiple links based on the sequence numbers and deliver the reordered packets to an upper layer or a next node.)([0077-0078])
merge the subframes received over the communication lanes with a communication status which is not the determined status, into the received data frame ([0051] Fig. 2, Packet aggregator 320, The packet aggregator 320 of the receiving entity may reorder the out-of-order packets incoming through multiple links based on the sequence numbers and deliver the reordered packets to an upper layer or a next node.) ([0077-0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Peng and Chen in view of Hwang in order to merge the subframes at the destination because it provides securing a stable and high aggregated throughput even in an environment where link state varies dynamically (Hwang [0009]).
Regarding claim 8: claim 8 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Peng et al. (“Peng”, US 20190123997 A1) hereinafter Peng, and Chen (“Chen”, US 20210211376 A1) hereinafter Chen, in view of Kontani et al. (“Kontani”, US 20210273887 A1) hereinafter Kontani.
Regarding claim 6, Peng and Chen teach the communication network according to claim 5,
Peng and Chen do not explicitly teach, but Kontani teaches
wherein the communication network is an in-vehicle communication network ([0007, 0022, 0030] an in-vehicle communication apparatus according to one aspect of the present disclosure is connected to another apparatus via a plurality of communication lines, and includes: a plurality of communication units that are provided respectively for the communication lines, and transmit/receive a message via the communication lines, a classification processing unit that performs processing for classifying messages that are to be transmitted to the other apparatus, into a plurality of groups in accordance with priorities of the messages,).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Peng and Chen in view of Kontani in order to have an vehicle communication network with different devices connected through plurality of communications and sending messages through different communications lines with different priorities and different classifications because it provides a way to suppress the delay in messages transmissions with different categorizations (Kontani [0004-0006]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights