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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of He et al. for the "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING ETHERNET FRAME, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING ETHERNET FRAME, DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM" filed 06/21/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/129600, filed 11/03/2022 and claims foreign priority to 202111576632.9, filed 12/22/2021, claims foreign priority to 202210023650.2, filed 01/10/2022 in China. Responsive to the restriction requirement filed on 06/26/2026, affirmation of the election has been made by applicant, and a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-11, 18-22. Claims 12-17, 23-30 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 C.F.R.' 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-11, 18-22 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the location of the protection field…" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the location of the target field…" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7. Claims 1-11, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCusatis et al. (US#2009/0210770) in view of Umayabashi et al. (US#2004/0047353).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a system and method for generating an Ethernet frame transmission, according to the essential features of the claim. DeCusatis et al. (US#2009/0210770) discloses a method comprising generating an Ethernet frame comprising a destination media access control (MAC) address field, a target field, a frame check sequence (FCS) field (Figs. 2, 5; [0020], [0029]: The data packet 200 includes a MAC header 202, a payload field 206 that holds the sent data, and a CRC checksum field 208. In a conventional Ethernet (type II) data packet, the CRC checksum field is used to determine if data errors exist as the data packet is transmitted and received by switches in the network 108. The Ethernet (type II) protocol (as defined in IEEE 802.3) provides a frame check sequence (FCS) field that checks for errors), and a protection field preceding the FCS field, wherein a protection range of the protection field comprises the MAC address field, and wherein the target field is a start of frame delimiter (SFD) field (Figs. 2, 5; para [0022]-[0023]: IEEE802.3 frame format - An Ethernet frame can include one or more of: a preamble, start of frame delimiter (SFD), destination MAC address, source MAC address, EtherType field, length field, frame check sequence (e.g., cyclic redundancy check (CRC)), and payload).
However, DeCusatis reference does not disclose expressly the protection field with a protection range. In the same field of endeavor, Umayabashi et al. (US#2004/0047353) teaches in Fig. 5 a diagram illustrated a format of an ethernet frame with the expansion tags 2500 to 2508 are stored, in which stored in the protection tag 2502 are failure information at the time of occurrence of a failure and protection path information for recovering from a failure. Stored in the OAM&P tag 2503 is operation/management information (para [0036]-[0038] & [0089], [0257]: protection information including failure information at the time of occurrence of a failure and protection path information for recovering from a failure).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Umayabashi’s transferring a data frame sent from a source on the network to a predetermined destination into DeCusatis’s providing error checking in an Ethernet protocol with the motivation being to provide a method and system for generating and processing an Ethernet frame.
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 2, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein the location of the protection field in the Ethernet frame is determined based on a location of a target field, and the location of the target field is before the location of the protection field in the Ethernet frame (see Fig. 5; para [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 3, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein the target field precedes the protection field in the Ethernet frame (see Fig. 5; para [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 4, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein the Ethernet frame further comprises an Ethernet type field indicating a location of the protection field in the Ethernet frame (see Fig. 5; para [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 5, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein the protection range further comprises at least one of a source MAC address field or an Ethernet type field (see Fig. 5; para [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 6, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach whereinthe Ethernet frame further comprises at least one tag field (see Figs. 1, 3, para [0248]-[0252]).
Regarding claim 7, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein the protection range further comprises the at least one tag field (see Fig. 5; para [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 8, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein first information about the protection field is based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) calculation using second information within the protection range (see Fig. 5; para [0259]).
Regarding claim 9, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein first information about the protection field is based on a forward error correction (FEC) code calculation using second information within the protection range (see Fig. 5; para [0259]).
Regarding claim 10, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Umayabashi et al. further teach wherein the protection field is located in a payload field in the Ethernet frame (see Fig. 5; para [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 11, DeCusatis et al. in view of Umayabashi et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above, DeCusatis et al. further teach wherein sending the Ethernet frame (para [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claims 18-22, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1-11 discussed above. Therefore, claims 18-22 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1-11 above.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Ren et al. (US#2025/0202568) is cited to show sensing beam determination for target zone coverage.
The Sharma et al. (US#2022/0124554) shows header compression adaptive to quality of radio channel.
The Asterjadhi et al. (US#2019/0007904) shows WUR frame formats and device communication
The Matsuike et al. (US#2013/0182720) shows frame concatenation apparatus.
The Khermosh et al. (US#7,890,840) shows enhancing the ethernet FEC state machine to strengthen correlator performance.
The Thaler et al. (US#9,455,905) shows encapsulation for link layer preemption.
The Hewson et al. (US#2026/0106840) shows credit-based flow control for Ethernet
The Yazaki (US#2003/0174715) shows frame transfer method and device.
9. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
11. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
08/04/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights