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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 03/22/24.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 03/22/24 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawing
5. The drawings filed on 03/22/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Claims Objections
6. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of minor informalities:
7. Claim 1, in part, recites, “…physical layer circuitry; and control circuitry…in lines 2-3. Since it is recited for the first time in the claim, for clarity it is suggested to change “physical layer circuitry; and control circuitry” to “a physical layer circuitry; and a control circuitry”.
8. Claims 11 & 19 are also objected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
9. Claims 2-10, 12-18 & 20 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claims set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claims 1-4, 10-12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE et al. (hereinafter referred as IEEE) NPL Document, “Draft Amendment to IEEE Std 802.3-2008 IEEE 802.3az Energy Efficient Ethernet Task Force” June 2010 (as disclosed in the IDS), in view of Fujiyama et al. (hereinafter referred as Fujiyama) US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0211831 A1.
Regarding claim 1: IEEE discloses a network device (corresponding to local RS) operable with a remote device (corresponding to remote RS), the network device (See Section 46.3.4; indication of local fault status on a data path between the a local RS and a remote RS) comprising:
physical layer circuitry (See Section 46.3.4; a PHY sublayer); and
store a link state for a full-duplex link with the remote device, the link state containing an indication of whether or not the full-duplex link is damped (See Section 46.3.4; the local RS receives faults detected between the remote RS and the local RS as a local fault. It is obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that this detected faults is saved or stored in a memory or a storage of the local RS. The operation supports full duplex); and
control the physical layer circuitry to signal via a transmit path of the full-duplex link based on the indication of whether or not the full-duplex link is damped (See Section 46.3.4; upon recognition of a fault condition, a PHY sublayer indicates local fault status on the data path. reporting a remote fault which indicates a fault in the transmit path between the local RS and the remote RS).
IEEE does not explicitly disclose a network device comprising: control circuitry.
However, Fujiyama from the same field of endeavor discloses a network device (FIG. 5B & Para. 0108; a communication apparatus 1001) comprising: control circuitry (FIG. 5B & Para. 0108; a communication apparatus 1001 includes a processor) configured to:
store a link state for a full-duplex link (See Para. 0087; store link status with links to local to the device controller); and
control the physical layer circuitry to signal via a transmit path of the full-duplex link based on the indication of whether or not the full-duplex link is damped (See Para. 0108; he termination of optical output to the remote apparatus 1002 as a fault notification operation may be realized by the notification controller 52 notifying the PMD 43 of an optical output termination signal (TX_disable)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a network device comprising: control circuitry as taught by Fujiyama in the system of IEEE in order to determine a route for the data stream across the network (See Para. 0008; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network node, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the physical layer circuitry to transmit an indication of remote fault via the transmit path based on an indication of the full-duplex link being damped (See Section 43.3.4; reporting a remote fault which indicates a fault in the transmit path between the local RS and the remote RS).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network node, wherein the transmission of the indication of remote fault, based on the indication that the full-duplex link is damped, causes the remote device to stop transmission of traffic on a receive path of the full-duplex link (See Section 43.3.4; in response to a remote fault status, stop sending MAC data or LPI).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network node, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the physical layer circuitry to stop transmission of the indication of remote fault via the transmit path based on an indication of the full-duplex link being not damped (See Section 43.3.4; in response to a remote fault status, stop sending MAC data or LPI).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network node, wherein the control circuitry is configured to perform an operation in accordance with a routing protocol based on whether or not the full-duplex link is damped (See Section 46.3.4; when a remote fault or link interruption status is received, the RS stop sending data. When the RS no longer revives fault status messages, it returns to normal operation, sending the MAC data).
Regarding claim 11: IEEE discloses a network device (corresponding to remote RS) (See Section 46.3.4; indication of local fault status on a data path between the a local RS and a remote RS) comprising:
obtain transmit path state information for a transmit path of a full-duplex link (See Section 46.3.4; receives a fault status. Remote fault status indicates a fault on the transmits path between the local RS and the remote RS );
obtain receive path state information for a receive path of the full-duplex link (See Section 46.3.4; receives a fault status. local fault status indicates a fault on the receive path between the remote RS and the local RS ); and
maintain a penalty metric for a link flap damping process based on the transmit path state information and based on the receive path state information (See Section 46; carrier status is set in response to link fault. Carrier status is set to carrier ON and carrier OFF).
IEEE does not explicitly disclose a network device comprising: memory circuitry; and one or more processors.
However, Fujiyama from the same field of endeavor discloses a network device comprising: memory circuitry; and one or more processors (FIG. 5B & Para. 0108; a communication apparatus 1001 includes a storage/a memory) coupled to the memory circuitry and configured to:
maintain a penalty metric for a link flap damping process (See Para. 0087; store link status with links to local to the device controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a network device comprising: memory circuitry; and one or more processors as taught by Fujiyama in the system of IEEE in order to determine a route for the data stream across the network (See Para. 0008; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network node, wherein the transmit path state information comprises remote fault information received via the receive path (See Section 46.3.4; remote fault).
Regarding claim 14: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network node, wherein the receive path state information comprises local fault information generated based on the receive path (See Section 46.3.4; local fault).
12. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE, in view of Xue et al. (hereinafter referred as Xue) US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0292193 A1.
Regarding claim 19: IEEE discloses a network device (corresponding to local RS) comprising:
physical layer circuitry (See Section 46.3.4; a PHY sublayer); and control circuitry coupled to the physical layer circuitry and configured to:
store a link state of a full-duplex link (See Section 46.3.4; the local RS receives faults detected between the remote RS and the local RS as a local fault. It is obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that this detected faults is saved or stored in a memory or a storage of the local RS. The operation supports full duplex operation); and
transmit, using the physical layer circuitry and on a transmit path of the full-duplex link, an indication of the damped state based on the link state being updated to the damped state (See Section 46.3.4; upon recognition of a fault condition, a PHY sublayer indicates local fault status on the data path. Reporting a fault status of a link. Local fault indicates a fault detected on the receive data path between the remote RS and the local RS. carrier status is set in response to link fault. Carrier status is set to carrier ON and carrier OFF)).
IEEE does not explicitly disclose a network device comprising control circuitry coupled to the physical layer circuitry and configured to: update the link state of the full-duplex link to a damped state.
However, Xue from the same field of endeavor discloses a network device (See FIG. 13 & Para. 0238) comprising control circuitry (See FIG. 13 & Para. 0238 includes a processor) coupled to the physical layer circuitry and configured to:
update the link state of the full-duplex link to a damped state (corresponding to deactivate state) (See Para. 0139; updates a link state of the direct link between the first device and the second device, that is, updates the link state of the direct link between the first device and the second device from an active state to a deactivate state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a network device comprising control circuitry coupled to the physical layer circuitry and configured to: update the link state of the full-duplex link to a damped state as taught by Xue in the system of IEEE in order to enable the server to forward the multimedia resource to the second device (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 20: The combination of IEEE and Xue disclose a network device.
Furthermore, IEEE discloses a network device, wherein the transmitted indication of the damped state comprises a transmitted indication of remote fault (See Section 46.3.4; remoter fault).
13. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE, in view of Fujiyama, further in view of Villamizar et al. (hereinafter referred as Villamizar) NPL Document, “BGP Route Flap Damping” November 1998 (as disclosed in the IDS).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with an exception of wherein the control circuitry is configured to perform link flap damping to determine the link state for the full-duplex link.
However, Villamizar from the same field of endeavor discloses perform link flap damping to determine the link state for the full-duplex link (See Page 2 & 34; “route flap damping” to determine damping state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include perform link flap damping to determine the link state for the full-duplex link as taught by Villamizar in the system of IEEE and Fujiyama ,would have yield predictable results of interoperability and compatibility between the telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers and resulted in the improve system (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
14. Claims 13 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE, in view of Fujiyama, further in view Xue.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of IEEE and Fujiyama disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with an exception of maintain the penalty metric by updating the penalty metric when the remote fault information indicates an occurrence of remote fault.
However, Xue from the same field of endeavor discloses maintain the penalty metric by updating the penalty metric when the remote fault information indicates an occurrence of remote fault (See Para. 0139; updates a link state of the direct link between the first device and the second device, that is, updates the link state of the direct link between the first device and the second device from an active state to a deactivate state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include maintain the penalty metric by updating the penalty metric when the remote fault information indicates an occurrence of remote fault as taught by Xue in the combined system of IEEE and Fujiyama in order to enable the server to forward the multimedia resource to the second device (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 15: The combination of IEEE, Fujiyama and Xue disclose a network device.
Furthermore, Xue discloses a network method, maintain the penalty metric by updating the penalty metric when the local fault information indicates an occurrence of local fault (See Para. 0139; updates a link state of the direct link between the first device and the second device, that is, updates the link state of the direct link between the first device and the second device from an active state to a deactivate state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include maintain the penalty metric by updating the penalty metric when the remote fault information indicates an occurrence of remote fault as taught by Xue in the combined system of IEEE and Fujiyama in order to enable the server to forward the multimedia resource to the second device (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 6-9 & 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
16. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Palanisamy et al. 2014/0241204 A1 (Title: Transit service in ethernet rings with protection) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Roja-Cessa et al. 2011/0026437 A1 (Title: Disseminating link state information to nodes of a network) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Navas et al. 2010/0128638 A1 (Title: Hierarchical shortest path first network routing protocol) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights