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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 19, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,171,869 in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0124824 (hereinafter “Edsall”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0236051 (hereinafter “Hu”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are obvious variants of each other.
Regarding claim 1 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method comprising:
detecting, by a device comprising a processor and based on snapshots of data comprising a plurality of packets, congestion associated with the device, wherein the congestion is a microburst congestion, and wherein the congestion is detected based on the at least one snapshot (see claim 1);
determining, by the device, that a subset of the plurality of packets associated with a flow are in a congested queue when the congestion occurs (see claim 1); and
based on a quantity of the subset of the plurality of packets reaching a threshold percentage relative to all packets in the congested queue when the congestion occurs, indicating, by the device, an identifiable flow that is a culprit flow, wherein the identifiable flow comprises the subset of the plurality of packets (see claim 1).
Claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 do not explicitly disclose at least one snapshot of the snapshots comprising a packet of the plurality of packets that has already departed the device…wherein the congested queue comprises the subset of the plurality of packets associated with the flow as well as one or more packets associated with one or more other flows.
However, Edsall, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests at least one snapshot of the snapshots comprising a packet of the plurality of packets that has already departed the device (see at least paragraphs 22 and 33-42, observing the packets stored in a buffer including collecting data about the packets stored in the buffer by capturing packet header metadata for each packet as it is dequeued from the buffer 302 and departs the network device 300).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the packet capturing technique as taught by Edsall in to the invention of claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 in order to better understand the nature of an incast congestion event.
Furthermore, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869, as modified by Edsall, does not expressly disclose that the congested queue comprises the subset of the plurality of packets associated with the flow as well as one or more packets associated with one or more other flows.
However, Hu, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests that the congested queue comprises the subset of the plurality of packets associated with the flow as well as one or more packets associated with one or more other flows (see at least Figs. 1 and 2, and paragraphs 106-108, packets of flow B and flow C are located in a queue 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the queue as taught by claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869, as modified by Edsall, to handle multiple flows of packets in a queue as taught by Hu in order to identify a congestion flow causing queue congestion and isolate the congestion flow from a queue.
Regarding claim 2 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising re-routing the packets of the identifiable flow to another route (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 3 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising adjusting a quality of service of the device associated with packets of the identifiable flow (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 4 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising dropping packets associated with the identifiable flow (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 5 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising load balancing packets of the identifiable flow (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 6 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising delaying packets of the identifiable flow (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 7 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses the device is a switch (see claim 6).
Claims 8-20 of the current application recite the same or similar features of claims 1-7 and are therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,295.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are obvious variants of each other.
Regarding claim 1 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 12/047,295 discloses a method comprising:
detecting, by a device comprising a processor and based on snapshots of data comprising a plurality of packets, congestion associated with the device, wherein the congestion is a microburst congestion, wherein at least one snapshot of the snapshots comprises a packet of the plurality of packets that has already departed the device, and wherein the congestion is detected based on the at least one snapshot (see claim 1);
determining, by the device, that a subset of the plurality of packets associated with a flow are in a congested queue when the congestion occurs, wherein the congested queue comprises the subset of the plurality of packets associated with the flow as well as one or more packets associated with one or more other flows (see claim 1); and
based on a quantity of the subset of the plurality of packets reaching a threshold percentage relative to all packets in the congested queue when the congestion occurs, indicating, by the device, an identifiable flow that is a culprit flow, wherein the identifiable flow comprises the subset of the plurality of packets (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 2 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising re-routing the packets of the identifiable flow to another route (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 3 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising adjusting a quality of service of the device associated with packets of the identifiable flow (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 4 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising dropping packets associated with the identifiable flow (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 5 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising load balancing packets of the identifiable flow (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 6 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses a method further comprising delaying packets of the identifiable flow (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 7 of the current application, claims 1-16 of USPN 11,171,869 discloses the device is a switch (see claim 7).
Claims 8-20 of the current application recite the same or similar features of claims 1-7 and are therefore rejected for the same or similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0351883 (Calavrezo et al.) – network packet microburst detection via network switching device, where a microburst is detected at an egress queue and a remedial action is performed responsive to the microburst detection.
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0334792 (Ayandeh) – Microburst detection in queues based on whether throughput on each of the queues exceeds a monitoring threshold.
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0136983 (Ghanwani et al.) – Microburst visibility system for microburst detection in a queue, where a networking device captures queue flow information in each data packet counter associated with queue identifier for a queue that experiences a microburst.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights