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 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
- Regarding to Applicant’s argument, that Bass selects cut-through or store-and-forward based on the FPV and MFPV rather than "a current state of the communication protocol." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claim does not define "current state of the communication protocol," and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term covers any condition of protocol operation that exists at the time of the forwarding decision. Attorney argument is not a substitute for evidence (MPEP 2145).
Second, Bass's selection depends on exactly such conditions: Logic 306 indicates that a cut-through frame can be transmitted when protocol processing logic 304 "has completed processing the frame," while a store-and-forward frame must wait until it is completely received. (Col. 6, ll. 22-30.) The decision is made in a second phase, after protocol processing logic 304 has finished. (Col. 8, ll. 12-25.) Logic 306 first determines whether the frame has been completely received. If not, it compares receive and transmit port speeds. (Col. 11, ll. 5-17; FIG. 11, steps 1110, 1120.) Further run-time tests include whether the output port requires the whole frame and whether input errors are high. (Col. 12, ll. 50-60.) Therefore, Bass discloses the limitation, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 16-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bass et al. (Patent No. 6144668).
- With respect to claim 1, Bass teaches a device comprising: a transceiver (e.g. Fig. 3 discloses transmit and receive frame); and a processor configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a first frame in accordance to a communication protocol (e.g. the protocol processing receive frame from block 302 in Fig. 3); and forward, via the transceiver (e.g. the frame from protocol 304 to 306 in Fig. 3), the first frame, wherein forwarding the first frame comprises: selecting a forwarding mode from a plurality of forwarding modes based on a current state of the communication protocol (e.g. block 306 in Fig. 3 determines the forwarding mode for the frame as cut through / store and forward), and forwarding the first frame in accordance to the selected forwarding mode (see col. 6, lines 1-35 discloses “This can include network protocol processing, unicast and multicast frame support, determining which output port the frame is sent to, etc. When the protocol processing logic 304 processes a multicast frame, it can create any number of different versions of the original received frame. The method the protocol processing logic 304 uses to perform multicasting of frames is outside the scope of this invention and is fully described in the cross-referenced related application "Multicast Frame Support in Hardware Routing Assist" incorporated by reference herein. The cut-through/store-and-forward decision logic 306 is responsible for determining whether a frame can be forwarded by cut-through or by store-and-forward, and then indicating to the transmit frame I/O logic 308 when the frame can be transmitted. If a frame can be forwarded by cut-through, cut-through/store-and-forward logic 306 indicates to the transmit frame I/O logic 308 that a frame can be transmitted when the protocol processing logic 304 has completed processing the frame. If a frame must be forwarded by store-and-forward, cut-through/store-and-forward logic 306 must wait to indicate to the transmit frame I/O logic 308 that the frame can be transmitted until after the frame is completely received by the receive frame I/O logic 302. The transmit frame I/O logic 308 is responsible for actually transmitting the frames in frame memory 300 to the external network ports.”).
- With respect to claim 2, Bass teaches wherein the plurality of forwarding modes include auto-forward (AD) mode, and cut-through (CT) mode (e.g. block 306 in Fig. 3 with cut through / store and forward).
- With respect to claim 3, Bass teaches wherein the plurality of forwarding modes include time triggered send (TTS) mode (e.g. col. 3, lines 63-65).
- With respect to claim 4, Bass teaches wherein the plurality of forwarding modes include loop back mode (e.g. Fig. 10 shows loop back mode).
- With respect to claim 11, Bass teaches wherein the first frame includes a status field indicative of the current state of the communication protocol (e.g. col. 1, lines 50-53).
- With respect to claim 16, Bass teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform error detection using a sideband signal (e.g. col. 2 line 12-14 discloses frame is checked for error).
- With respect to claim 17, Bass teaches further comprising a memory, wherein the plurality of forwarding modes are stored in a list stored in the memory (e.g. memory discloses in Fig. 3).
- With respect to claim 19, Bass teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive, via the transceiver, a startup frame that includes a source address field and a destination address field (see col. 1, lines 50-53).
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) 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bass et al. (Patent No. 6144668) in view of Nagai et al. (Pub No. 20090067429).
- With respect to claim 12, Bass fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to transmit, via the transceiver, a startup frame that includes a status field indicative of the current state of the communication protocol. Nagai discloses a startup frame that includes a status field indicative of the current state of the communication protocol (e.g. Fig. 3C block 333). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling to implement the status field into frame of Bass to determine current state of communication.
- With respect to claim 18, Nagai teaches wherein the processor is configured to transmit, via the transceiver, a second frame that includes type field indicative of a frame type of the second frame, and a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code, wherein a size of the CRC code is based on the frame type of the second frame (e.g. Fig. 3 shows CRC, par. 66-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 13-15, 20 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights