DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed January 15, 2026. Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 14, and 15 have been amended. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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.
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) 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundar et al. (US 2015/0341278 A1, hereinafter Sundar), in view of Naeimi et al. (US 2023/0300063 A1, hereinafter Naeimi) and Gross, IV et al. (US 2015/0019748 A1, hereinafter Gross).
As to Amended Claim 1, Sundar discloses a network interface controller or card (NIC), comprising:
fragmentation circuitry configured to shrink the plurality of replicated packets to satisfy a MTU size based on unique identifiers assigned to the plurality of replicated packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.).
However, Sundar does not disclose replicator circuitry configured to replicate a packet to generate a plurality of replicated packets.
In an analogous art, Naeimi discloses replicator circuitry configured to replicate a packet to generate a plurality of replicated packets ((Naeimi; Fig. 9A; [0074]), where Naeimi disclose a traffic manager including a packet replicator to perform replication of packets.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundar to include replicator circuitry configured to replicate a packet to generate a plurality of replicated packets as taught by Naeimi to enable packet processing (Naeimi; [0072]).
However, Sundar-Naeimi does not disclose after determining a packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size.
In an analogous art, Gross discloses after determining a packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size, replicating the packet ((Gross; [0153, 0162, 0167]), where Gross discloses a NIC receiving a packet. A determination can be made if the packet is bigger than the delivery networks MTU size. The NIC can replicate (i.e. segment) the packets into smaller size to conform to a specified size.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundar-Naeimi to include after determining a packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size, replicating the packet as taught by Gross to enable "offloading" some of the processing tasks to the NICs of the switches when the NICs are capable of performing those processing tasks (Gross; [0006]).
As to Claim 2, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the NIC of claim 1, further comprising:
evaluation circuitry connected to an input of the replicator circuitry, the evaluation circuitry configured to determine that the packet exceeds the MTU size ((Sundar; Fig. 2; [0039-0040]), where Sundar discloses determining the packet exceeds the MTU size.), (Naeimi; [0018]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 3, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the NIC of claim 2, wherein the evaluation circuitry comprises an ingress pipeline and the fragmentation circuitry comprises an egress pipeline (Naeimi; Fig. 9A; [0061]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 4, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the NIC of claim 1, wherein shrinking the plurality of replicated packets comprises:
identifying, using the unique identifiers, an amount of data at the beginning of payloads in the plurality of the replicated packets to remove; and determining whether to truncate the end of the payloads of the plurality of replicated packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.), (Naeimi; [0018]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 5, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the NIC of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of replicated packets has a different amount of data removed at the beginning of its payload and a different amount of data removed at the end of its payload relative to the other replicated packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.).
As to Claim 7, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the NIC of claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of replicated packets is based on a size of the packet and the MTU size ((Sundar; Figs. 2 & 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses truncating the packets based on MTU size.).
As to Claim 8, Sundar discloses an integrated circuit (IC), comprising:
fragmentation circuitry configured to shrink the plurality of replicated IP packets to form packet fragments based on unique identifiers assigned to the plurality of replicated IP packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.).
However, Sundar does not disclose replicator circuitry configured to replicate the IP packet to generate a plurality of replicated IP packets.
In an analogous art, Naeimi discloses replicator circuitry configured to replicate the IP packet to generate a plurality of replicated IP packets ((Naeimi; Fig. 9A; [0074]), where Naeimi disclose a traffic manager including a packet replicator to perform replication of packets.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundar to include replicator circuitry configured to replicate the IP packet to generate a plurality of replicated IP packets as taught by Naeimi to enable packet processing (Naeimi; [0072]).
However, Sundar-Naeimi does not disclose after determining an internet protocol (IP) packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size.
In an analogous art, Gross discloses after determining an internet protocol (IP) packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size ((Gross; [0153, 0162, 0167]), where Gross discloses a NIC receiving a packet. A determination can be made if the packet is bigger than the delivery networks MTU size. The NIC can replicate (i.e. segment) the packets into smaller size to conform to a specified size.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundar-Naeimi to include after determining an internet protocol (IP) packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size as taught by Gross to enable "offloading" some of the processing tasks to the NICs of the switches when the NICs are capable of performing those processing tasks (Gross; [0006]).
As to Amended Claim 9, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the IC of claim 8, further comprising:
evaluation circuitry connected to an input of the replicator circuitry, the evaluation circuitry configured to determine that the packet exceeds the MTU size ((Sundar; Fig. 2; [0039-0040]), where Sundar discloses determining the packet exceeds the MTU size.), (Naeimi; [0018]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 10, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the IC of claim 9, wherein the evaluation circuitry comprises an ingress pipeline and the fragmentation circuitry comprises an egress pipeline (Naeimi; Fig. 9A; [0061]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 11, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the IC of claim 8, wherein shrinking the plurality of replicated IP packets comprises:
identifying, using the unique identifiers, an amount of data at the beginning of payloads in the plurality of the replicated IP packets to remove; and determining whether to truncate the end of the payloads of the plurality of replicated IP packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.), (Naeimi; [0018]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 12, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the IC of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of replicated IP packets has a different amount of data removed at the beginning of its payload and a different amount of data removed at the end of its payload relative to the other replicated IP packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.).
As to Amended Claim 14, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the IC of claim 8, wherein a number of the plurality of replicated IP packets is based on a size of the packet and the MTU size ((Sundar; Figs. 2 & 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses truncating the packets based on MTU size.).
As to Amended Claim 15, Sundar discloses a method, comprising:
shrinking, in the NIC, the plurality of replicated packets to satisfy the MTU size based on unique identifiers assigned to the plurality of replicated packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.).
However, Sundar does not disclose replicating, in a NIC, a packet to generate a plurality of replicated packets.
In an analogous art, Naeimi discloses replicating, in a NIC, the packet to generate a plurality of replicated packets s ((Naeimi; Fig. 9A; [0074]), where Naeimi disclose a traffic manager including a packet replicator to perform replication of packets.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundar to include replicating, in a NIC, a packet to generate a plurality of replicated packets as taught by Naeimi to enable packet processing (Naeimi; [0072]).
However, Sundar-Naeimi does not disclose after determining a packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size.
In an analogous art, Gross discloses after determining a packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size, replicating the packet ((Gross; [0153, 0162, 0167]), where Gross discloses a NIC receiving a packet. A determination can be made if the packet is bigger than the delivery networks MTU size. The NIC can replicate (i.e. segment) the packets into smaller size to conform to a specified size.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundar-Naeimi to include after determining a packet exceeds a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size, replicating the packet as taught by Gross to enable "offloading" some of the processing tasks to the NICs of the switches when the NICs are capable of performing those processing tasks (Gross; [0006]).
As to Claim 16, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising, before replicating the packet:
determining that the packet exceeds the MTU size ((Sundar; Fig. 2; [0039-0040]), where Sundar discloses determining the packet exceeds the MTU size.), (Naeimi; [0018]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 17, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the method of claim 15, wherein shrinking the plurality of replicated packets comprises:
identifying, using the unique identifiers, an amount of data at the beginning of payloads in the plurality of the replicated packets to remove; and determining whether to truncate the end of the payloads of the plurality of replicated packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.), (Naeimi; [0018]).
The Examiner provides the same motivation to combine as previously presented in the independent claim.
As to Claim 18, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the method of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of replicated packets has a different amount of data removed at the beginning of its payload and a different amount of data removed at the end of its payload relative to the other replicated packets ((Sundar; Fig. 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses based on the determined MTU size the packets can be truncated and forwarded based on the MTU size satisfaction.).
As to Claim 20, Sundar-Naeimi-Gross discloses the method of claim 15, wherein a number of the plurality of replicated packets is based on a size of the packet and the MTU size ((Sundar; Figs. 2 & 4; [abs; 0036-0037, 0044]), where Sundar discloses truncating the packets based on MTU size.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19 is/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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SEE PTO-892.
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 examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M THIEU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7475 and fax number is (571) 270-8475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at (571) 272-7952. 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.
/BENJAMIN M THIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 3.11.2026