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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/869,932, filed on July 21, 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on Dec 2, 2025, is acknowledged.
On page 1 of the Response, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction between Group I and Group I and respectfully submits that the Restriction Requirement is improper. In particular, the Office Action alleges that the inventions of Groups I and II are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Applicant respectfully notes that Claims 1-13 are directed to a network device, and Claims 14-22 are directed to a slotted network that includes an example network device. For example, the claimed "first slave device" of independent claims may operate as the example "network device" as recited in independent Claim 1. Furthermore, the Office alleges that the inventions claimed "do not appear to sic capable of use together." As described above, Applicant respectfully disagrees and notes that at least one of the devices in the slotted network of Claims 14-22 is the example network device of Claims 1-13.
To the extent Applicant is arguing that the inventions are capable of use together, the Examiner notes that claim 14 does not recite a “network device”. Applicant argues that the “first slave device” in claim 14 “may operate as ... the example ‘network device’” of claim 1. However, this arguments does not appear to be supported by the claims. In particular, different terms are used (“network device” in claim 1 and “first slave device” in claim 14) and there are structural and functional differences between the “first slave device” recited in claim 14 and the “network device” recited in claim 1. See the claim chart on page 3 of the previous Action.
To the extent Applicant is arguing that the inventions do not have materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect, it is not persuasive. In particular, Applicant has not addressed the material differences set forth in the chart on page 3 of the previous Action.
In the paragraph spanning pages 1-2, Applicant argues:
Additionally, the Office appears to allege that the various claim dependencies in the dependent claims as filed add additional search and examination burdens. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In particular, the Office appears to note that various claims depend from other claims in different combinations and alleges that this will require separate searches. Applicant respectfully submits that the searching burden of the feature of a particular dependent claim is the same regardless of dependency because the feature will need to be searched regardless, particularly given that the slotted network includes an example network device as described above. As such, Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction and requests examination of each of the claims as filed.
This argument appears to be directed to the second half of part “d” of the factors considered for the search and examination burden (see the search and examination discussion on pages 4-5 of the previous Action). Applicant argues only a portion of part “d” and does not argue any of the other factors. As a result, even if Applicant’s argument regarding part “d” is correct, it is not persuasive because the other factors in the analysis (the remainder of part “d” plus parts “a”, “b”, and “c”) are more than enough to support a serious search and examination burden. See the previous Action on pages 4-5.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s argument. Applicant argues:
... the searching burden of the feature of a particular dependent claim is the same regardless of dependency because the feature will need to be searched regardless, particularly given that the slotted network includes an example network device as described above ...
This argument oversimplifies the search and examination process. Claim limitations (e.g., claim features) are not searched and examined in the abstract, but rather are searched and examined in the context of all of the limitations in the claim as well as the limitations of the claim(s) from which it depends. As a result, the dependency of a claim affects the body of art that must be searched and considered, and the dependency of a claim affects whether and how art can be applied to a claim.
Claims which are serially-dependent often allow the search results from one claim to be narrowed and used with the next, serially-dependent claim. For example, if claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 3 depends from claim 2, then claim 3 can often be searched by narrowing the results for claim 2. This is because claim 3 requires all of the limitations of claim 2. As a result, the art considered for claim 3 is often a subset of the art that was already considered for claim 2, and this allows the Examiner to focus limited examination time on the same body of art.
On the other hand, parallel dependent claims impose a greater search and examination burden. For example, if claims 2 and 3 both depend directly from claim 1, then claim 3 often cannot be searched by merely narrowing the art already considered for claim 2. This is because the limitations of claim 2 are not required in claim 3. Instead, claim 3 requires a search that is not limited by claim 2, and this will result in a new body of art that the Examiner must consider and determine whether it can be applied to the claim. This will usually require more time and effort than when the same body of art is being considered.
As a result, the dependency of the claims is certainly a factor affecting the search and examination burden. This is not the only factor, and other factors were also considered in the discussion of the search and examination burden on pages 4-5 of the previous Action. However, Applicant, has not argued these other factors.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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.
Claims 2 and 5-13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites:
The network device according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more ports are optical ports configured to be optically coupled with a plurality of devices via an optical switch.
Also, the “plurality of devices” and the “optical switch” are inferentially claimed within the functional language of the ports. It is not clear if the “plurality of devices” and the “optical switch” are required limitations of the network device, or if they are non-limiting intended use. Based on the Examiner’s reading of the application, these elements appear to be outside of the network device and, for the purposes of this Action, they will be interpreted as non-limiting intended use. However, if Applicant intends these elements to be part of the network device, then the Examiner suggests affirmatively claiming them as part of the network device. For example:
2. The network device according to Claim 1, further comprising:
an optical switch, and
a plurality of devices;
wherein the one or more ports are optical ports optically coupled with [[a]] the plurality of devices via [[an]] the optical switch.
If this language is adopted, Applicant should also indicate support for these elements as part of the network device. If Applicant does not intend it to be part of the network device, then the Examiner suggests removing them to avoid confusion.
Claim 5 recites:
The network device according to Claim 1, wherein, during a first time period, the one or more ports are coupled with a first network device that generates the master clock signal via a master clock of the first network device.
This claim appears to recite how the network device of claim 1 is intended to be used “during a first time period” with inferentially claimed elements (a “first network device” and a “master clock”) within the discussion of the ports. It is not clear if this language is a required limitation of the network device or if it is non-limiting intended use. These elements appear to be outside of the network device and, for the purposes of this Action, they will be interpreted as non-limiting intended use.
Claim 6 recites:
The network device according to Claim 5, wherein, during a second time period following the first time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled in the absence of connection between the network device and the first network device.
It is not clear how the synchronization device is “configured” to achieve the desired results. In other words, it is not clear what structure is within the scope of this language. It may mean that some additional structure is required (e.g., sensors for detecting the connection, memory with programming, and a signal processor to execute programming to enable and disable to device in the recited situations), but no additional structure is claimed and the Examiner can find no support for such an embodiment in the application. For the purposes of this Action, the claim will be interpreted broadly to include well-known ways of disabling a device, such as a power button.
Also, the claim begins with “during a second time period following the first time period”. It is not clear if that makes the entire claim non-limiting intended use (i.e., the claim is intended to be used/configured this way during the second time period) or if this is a limitation of the network device or the synchronization manager. The Examiner suggests the following:
6. The network device according to Claim 5, wherein,
when there is an , and
when the absence of connection is during a second time period following the first time period.
This will clarify that the time period is a limitation of synchronization manager and not non-limiting intended use. Even if this language is adopted, the “configured to” language will still need to be addressed (i.e., clarifying how the synchronization manager is “configured” to achieve this functionality).
Claim 7 is similar to claim 5 and recites what appears to be non-limiting intended use “during a second time period” with an inferentially claimed element (a “third network device”). It is not clear if this language recites required limitations of the claim or non-limiting intended use. For the purposes of this Action, it will be interpreted as non-limiting intended use.
Claim 8 is similar to claim 6 in that the “synchronization manager” and the “local clock” are “configured” to achieve a desired result. It is not clear how these elements are “configured” to achieve the desired results or what structure is within the scope of this language. Also, the “during a second time period” language is unclear. See the discussion of claim 6.
Claim 9 is similar to claim 6 in that the “synchronization manager” and the “network device” are “configured” to achieve a desired result. It is not clear how these elements are “configured” to achieve the desired results or what structure is within the scope of this language. Also, the “during a second time period” language is unclear. See the discussion of claim 6.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 5 and recites what appears to be non-limiting intended use “during a third time period” with an inferentially claimed element (a “second network device”). It is not clear if this language recites required limitations of the claim or non-limiting intended use. For the purposes of this Action, it will be interpreted as non-limiting intended use.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 6 in that the “synchronization manager” and the “local clock” are “configured” to achieve a desired result. It is not clear how these elements are “configured” to achieve the desired results or what structure is within the scope of this language. Also, the “during the third time period” language is unclear. See the discussion of claim 6.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 6 in that the “synchronization manager” and the “network device” are “configured” to achieve a desired result. It is not clear how these elements are “configured” to achieve the desired results or what structure is within the scope of this language. Also, the “during the third time period” language is unclear. See the discussion of claim 6.
Claim 13 is similar to claim 5 and recites what appears to be non-limiting intended use “during a first guard band” with inferentially claimed elements (an “optical switch”, a “network”, and the “first network device”). It is not clear if this language recites required limitations of the claim or non-limiting intended use. For the purposes of this Action it will be interpreted as non-limiting intended use.
Claims 6-13 are also rejected because they depend from one or more the claims rejected above and they fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Failure to Further Limit
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 5-13 are rejected under 112(b) above. In the interests of compact prosecution, they are also rejected under 112(d). It seems to the Examiner that addressing the 112(b) rejections will likely also address the 112(d) rejections, and vice versa.
Claim 5 recites:
The network device according to Claim 1, wherein, during a first time period, the one or more ports are coupled with a first network device that generates the master clock signal via a master clock of the first network device.
This claim recites how the network device is intended to be used and does not further limit the structure. If this intended use requires particular structure of the network device, then the Examiner suggests amending the claim to particularly point out the additional structure.
Claim 6 recites:
The network device according to Claim 5, wherein, during a second time period following the first time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled in the absence of connection between the network device and the first network device.
This claim recites how the network device is intended to be used and does not further limit the structure. If this intended use requires particular structure of the network device, then the Examiner suggests amending the claim to particularly point out the additional structure.
Claims 7-12 all recite “during a second time period” or “during a third time period” at the beginning the claims and are rejected for the reasons discussed in claims 5 and 6.
Claim 13 recites:
The network device according to Claim 5, wherein, during a first guard band following the first time period, an optical switch operably coupling the network device and the first network device may reconfigure device connections of a network comprising the network device and the first network device
This claim recites how the network device is intended to be used “during a guard band” with an “optical switch” and a “network” (both of which are inferentially claimed and are interpreted as non-limiting intended use) and the first network device (which is interpreted as non-limiting intended use; see claim 5). If Applicant intends this claim to further limit the structure of claim 1, then the Examiner suggests amending the claim to particularly point out the additional structure.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obvious
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0169975 (Kwon).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a network device comprising:
one or more ports (FIG. 2: ports on bottom left of figure);
a local clock in communication with the one or more ports (FIG. 2: clock generator 2154 in communication with one of the ports on the left side); and
a synchronization manager in communication with the one or more ports and the local clock (FIG. 2: clock switch 2153);
wherein, when enabled, the synchronization manager is configured to:
receive a master clock signal via the one or more ports (FIG. 2: receives external clock source 2152 via a port); and
transmit an instruction to the local clock to set the local clock to a frequency of the master clock signal (FIG. 2: transmits an instruction to the clock generator 2154).
FIG. 2 is reproduced for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Local Clock.
FIG. 2 illustrates element 2151 as a “local clock”. However, a closer reading of the reference shows that Kwon teaches that the clock generator 2154 also operates as a local clock. See, for example:
[0108] The clock generator may generate a plurality of system clock signals used to synchronize components included in each of communication nodes in the communication system 200 based on the internal clock signal or the external clock signal received from the clock switch 2153.
In other words, Kwon teaches that the clock generator 2154 generates clock signals, so it is a clock. Furthermore, it is local to the network device, so it is a local clock. Finally, the claim does not recite any particular structure or functionality for the local clock other than it is a clock and it is in communication with one or more ports. Therefore, the clock generator is a local clock.
Synchronization Manager.
Regarding “wherein, when enabled, the synchronization manager is configured to”, this is broad language and is interpreted to including the device performing its functionality when it is powered up and operational. Configuring a device in this manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The clock switch 2153 receives the clock signal from the external clock source 2152 via one of the ports in FIG. 2. It also transmits an instruction to the clock generator to set the clock to a frequency of the signal of the external clock source. See:
[0106] The clock switch 2153 may select one of an internal clock signal generated by the local clock 2151 and an external clock signal input from the external clock source 2152, and may transmit the selected clock signal to the clock generator 2154.
[0107] According to an embodiment, the clock switch 2153 basically transmits the external clock signal input from the external clock source 2152 to the clock generator 2154, but may transmit the internal clock signal generated by the local clock 2151 to the clock generator 2154 when a synchronization loss occurs.
[0108] The clock generator may generate a plurality of system clock signals used to synchronize components included in each of communication nodes in the communication system 200 based on the internal clock signal or the external clock signal received from the clock switch 2153.
In other words, the clock switch 2153 selects one of the clock signals and sends an instruction (in the form of the selected signal) to the clock generator to set the clock generator 2154 to the desired clock signal. It also teaches that different clocks with different frequencies can be generated. See:
[0109] According to an embodiment, the plurality of system clock signals may include at least one of a first system clock signal commonly used for synchronization of an RF processing part (e.g., 2110), a second system clock signal commonly used for synchronization of an Ethernet processing part (e.g., 2140), a third system clock signal commonly used for synchronization of a main processing part (e.g., 2120), and a fourth system clock commonly used for synchronization of a physical layer transceivers (e.g., 2131 and 2132).
[0110] According to an embodiment, the first system clock signal, the second system clock signal, the third system clock signal, and the fourth system clock signal may be clock signals having different frequencies.
Although this does not characterize these functions as happening when the clock switch is “enabled”, this would have been obvious. In particular, it would have been obvious that the clock switch is “enabled” when it performs its functionality. On the other hand, when a device is not enabled (or “disabled”) it is not able to operate or perform its functionality.
Alternative Rejections.
Alternative rejections are also made using FIGS. 3 and 4. In particular, FIG. 3 illustrates a more detailed view of the hub devices 220 in FIG. 1 including ports, a local clock (clock generator 2207), and a synchronization manager (clock switch 2206). These operate in a manner consistent with FIG. 2 (see the discussion of FIG. 2 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 teaches the use of clock recovery circuit 2204 which recovers a clock signal from the signal received at the input signal port. See:
[0123] The recovery circuit 2204 may recover clock signals and data included in a downlink signal or an uplink signal received from the upper physical layer transceiver 2201
Similarly, FIG. 4 illustrates a more detailed view of the remote devices 230 in FIG. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
656
966
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These devices include plural ports, a local clock (clock generator 2346), and a synchronization manager (clock switch 2344). These operate in a manner consistent with FIG. 2 (see the discussion of FIG. 2 above).
Regarding claim 2, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more ports are optical ports configured to be optically coupled with a plurality of devices via an optical switch.
Kwon teaches the use of ports as discussed in claim 1, and Kwon further teaches the use of optical transceivers and optical links and optical cables to and from plural other devices. See, for example:
[0013] According to an aspect of an embodiments, the communication nodes in the communication system may be connected to each other through an optical link.
[0062] For example, at least one of the head-end device 210 and the extension device 220a, the head-end device 210 and the remote device 230a, and the extension devices 220a and 220b and the remote device 230c and 230d may be connected to each other through an RF cable, a twisted cable, a UTP cable or the like in addition to the optical cable.
[0063] Therefore, in the communication system 200, the head-end device 210, the extension devices 220a and 220b, and the remote devices 230a, 230b, 230c, and 230d may include an optical transceiver module for transmitting and receiving optical signals through electro-optical conversion/photoelectric conversion, and may further include a wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) device when nodes are connected to each other by a single optical cable.
It would have been obvious that the ports connected with optical transceivers are optical ports, and the ports connected with optical cable and optical links are optical ports.
Regarding the ports being “configured” to be optically coupled with plural devices, this would have been obvious. Ports are inherently configured to be coupled with other devices. See also Kwon at FIG. 1 which illustrates the device 210 connected to other network devices such as the Hub Devices 220 and Remote Devices 230.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In other words, the ports are “configured” to be coupled to other devices.
Regarding the optical switch, this is interpreted as non-limiting intended use (see the 112(b) rejection). However, the Examiner notes that optical switches are well-known to be used in optical networks and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 1, wherein the network device is a data processing unit (DPU), a computer processing unit (CPU), an optical switch, or an electrical switch.
Kwon at FIG. 2 illustrates an optical device including controllers and signal processing circuits, and this is within the scope of a data processing unit and a computer processing unit. Furthermore, the device including a clock switch (see the discussion of claim 1), which makes the apparatus an electrical switch.
Kwon teaches an optical device in an optical communication system and, although it is not required for this rejection, in the interests of compact prosecution the Examiner notes that it was known for optical communications systems to include optical switches, and for optical switches to include clocks.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0304822 (Bianchi).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 1, wherein the network device further comprises a network interface card (NIC) comprising the one or more ports, the synchronization manager, and/or the local clock.
Kwon teaches the device of claim 1 including ports. Bianchi at FIG. 1 illustrates a portion of an optical communication system with network elements 11, 12 including ports 20, 21, 22, 23.
PNG
media_image5.png
168
590
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0015] FIG. 1 illustrates an example pair of network elements 11 and 12, such as client access points or 3R (Regeneration, Reshape and Re-time) points, of a representative OTN. The network elements 11 and 12 are connected by bidirectional communication channels 10 and are shown as being connected to another network element by bidirectional communication channels 13 and 14 respectively. The channels 10, 13 and 14 are carried by one or more optical fibers. Though the FIG. 1 network might be considered part of a ring network, the relatively simple arrangement is selected for the purposes of ease of illustration and the network of FIG. 1 should not be considered so limited. More networks, such as mesh networks, can likewise be contemplated.
[0016] The network element 11 has a port 20 which is connected to the bidirectional communication channels 10 and a port 21 to the bidirectional communication channels 13. The network element 12 port 23 which is connected to the bidirectional communication channels 20 and a port 22 which is connected to the bidirectional communication channels 14. As shown by FIG. 2, the two network elements 11 and 12 with respective OTN interfaces 20 and 23 of FIG. 1, parts of an OTN, communicate over a communications channel 10A from the node 11 to the network element 12 and over a communications channel 10B from the network element 12 to the network element 11. Together both channels 10A and 10B form the bidirectional communication channels 10.
FIG. 5A illustrates a more detailed view of the network elements including NICs 50, 52 for the ports of the network elements.
PNG
media_image6.png
267
728
media_image6.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0023] The network element ports, such as ports 20 and 23, are preferably implemented as line cards, cards for network interfaces. FIG. 5A illustrates how an example network interface card might be arranged according to one embodiment of the present invention. In this example, two network interface cards 50 and 53 for the ports 20 and 23 respectively, each have one FEC (Forward Error Correction) integrated circuit 51 and one FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) integrated circuit 52. Alternatively, the integrated circuit 52 can be an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit). Data is transmitted bidirectionally over the communication channels 10A and 10B (see FIG. 3).
In other words, it was known that network devices in optical communications systems can include NICs comprising ports.
It would have been obvious that the ports in claim Kwon can be implemented in a known manner, such as with NICs as taught in Bianchi. In particular, both are in the same technical field and the results would have been predictable (e.g., the NICs will implement the ports).
The Examiner notes that the following claims are rejected under 112(b) and/or (d). However, in the interests of compact prosecution, and to assist Applicant in preparing the most complete response, the following rejections are presented.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 10. 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200169975 (Kwon).
Regarding claim 5 Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 1, wherein, during a first time period, the one or more ports are coupled with a first network device that generates the master clock signal via a master clock of the first network device.
Kwon teaches a port receiving an external clock signal (see the discussion of claim 1). See also:
[0104] An external clock source 2152 may be located outside the head-end device 210 or outside the communication system 200 to be communicatively connected to the head-end device 210 and may provide an external clock.
It would have been obvious that the port receiving the external clock signals is coupled with a device generating the external master clock signal.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 5, wherein, during a second time period following the first time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled in the absence of connection between the network device and the first network device.
Kwon teaches a synchronization manager connected to the external clock (FIG. 2: clock switch 2153 connected to external clock 2152).
The “configured to be disabled” language is broad and would have been obvious (e.g., a power switch or power cord). This also applies to the synchronization manager being configured to be disabled in subsequent claims.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that it also would have been obvious to (at least partially) disable the clock switch 2153 if it is not receiving the signal from external clock 2152. For example, it would have been obvious that when the external clock signal is not received, the functionality using that clock signal can be disabled. In other words, it would have been obvious that the clock switch 2153 is disabled from connecting to the external source 2152 when the external source 2152 is not being received and used.
Finally, the particular timing of this claim would be obvious when, for example, a cable is connected and subsequently disconnected or cut.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 5, wherein, during a second time period following the first time period, the one or more ports of the network device are coupled with a third network device.
Kwon teaches the use of plural ports. See:
PNG
media_image1.png
646
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, FIG. 1 illustrates the device 210 connected to other network devices such as the Hub Devices 220.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious that these ports can be used in a known manner, such as by connecting to another network devices.
The timing of this claim would be obvious because the port connections can be made in either order and the synchronization manager can be disabled whenever the conditions dictate (e.g., see claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 7, wherein, during the second time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled, and the network device is configured to transmit a frequency of the local clock to the third network device.
Kwon teaches that the clock signal can be transmitted to another network device. See:
[0153] According to an embodiment, the Ethernet physical layer transceiver 2330 may transmit the any one of the system clock signals generated by the clock generator 2346 to a connected small cell (e.g., 300c).
It also teaches that the clock signals are used to synchronize signals transmitted to other network devices. See, for example, [0081], [0091], [0092], [0094], [0102], [0121]. See also, for example:
[0152] The Ethernet physical layer transceiver 2330 may be synchronized under the control of the timing controller 2347 based on the any one of the system clock signals generated by the clock generator 2346.
In other words, the clock frequency is used to synchronize transmitted signals, so that the clock signal frequency is transmitted in the form of synchronized transmitted signals.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 7, wherein, during a third time period following the second time period, the one or more ports of the network device are coupled with a second network device.
As discussed with regard to claim 7, Kwon teaches to couple the ports to other network devices and the coupling recited in the claim would have been obvious.
The timing of this claim would be obvious because the port connections can be made in any order.
Regarding claim 12, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 10, wherein, during the third time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled, and the network device is configured to transmit a frequency of the local clock to the second network device.
This would have been obvious for the reasons discussed in claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 5, wherein, during a first guard band following the first time period, an optical switch operably coupling the network device and the first network device may reconfigure device connections of a network comprising the network device and the first network device.
Guard bands were well-known to be used in optical communications and optical switches were also well-known to switch connections or configurations in optical communications systems, and the Examiner takes Official Notice thereof.
It would have been obvious that the network device is used in a known manner, such as signals having guard bands and an optical switch between network elements. Furthermore, optical switch inherently switch between different states or configurations (e.g., connecting different switch inputs to different switch outputs). Therefore, the use of an optical switch would obviously mean the optical switch can reconfigure device connections of between the devices to which it is attached.
The Examiner notes that the following claims are rejected under 112(b) and/or (d). However, in the interests of compact prosecution, and to assist Applicant in preparing the most complete response, the following rejections are presented.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claims 7 and 10, respectively, above, and further in view of US 2016/0050298 (Lechowicz).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 7, wherein, during the second time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled, and the local clock of the network device is configured to operate at a frequency received from the third network device.
Furthermore, Lechowicz teaches that it was known for networks to use more than one external clock. See:
[0057] The external clock data element 330 can be a source of periodical events used to pace the flow of data through synchronous components. In some embodiments, a component may include more than one external clock or may not require any clock signals at all—in this case the inputs are processed when they are asserted on the input ports.
It would have been obvious that the external clock in Kwon can be implemented in a known manner, such as with more than one external clock as taught in Lechowicz. With this in mind, it would have been obvious that the second external clock is received from another network device. In particular, both are in the same technical field (e.g., optical communications; see Lechowicz at [0057]) and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Kwon teaches the network device according to Claim 10, wherein, during the third time period, the synchronization manager is configured to be disabled, and the local clock of the network device is configured to operate at a frequency received from the second network device.
This would have been obvious for the reasons discussed in claim 8.
Regarding the time periods, it would have been obvious that the local clock operates at the frequency received from the second network device beginning at the time the second network device is connected (and not, for example, before the second network device is connected).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0042357 (MRAZ) teaches that the use of NICs was well-known. See:
[0042] One example of network interface circuitry embodying the present invention is a network interface card (NIC). A network interface card (NIC) typically comprises a circuit board populated with the necessary network interface circuitry thereon that can be easily coupled to or installed in a computer so that it can be connected to a network or to another computer. When two computers are connected via a NIC, the NIC typically provides a transparent interface between them. The computer presents data to the NIC so that it may be passed to another networked device and the NIC formats that data for transport over the media. Conversely, the NIC receives data from the networked computer and reformats it so that the computer can understand it. Network interface cards provide a dedicated, full-time connection between computers or to a network. Thus, most NICs are designed for a particular type of network, protocol, and media. Accordingly, NICs are suitable to achieve the object of the present invention. Two NIC circuit boards may be configured to be populated by necessary network interface circuitry to enable the Send-Only and the Receive-Only functionality for the Send Node and the Receive Node, respectively.
US 2013/0101289 (Graham) at FIG. 2 illustrates an optical switch including switch port devices 215, 220 in an optical communication system.
PNG
media_image7.png
358
734
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It also teaches that it was known for NICs to implement switch port devices. See:
[0041] Similarly, the placement of the switch port devices 215 and 220 are shown by way of example only. In an alternative embodiment, the switch port devices may be integrated in the end devices as a network interface card (NIC) such as a PCI Express NIC. Similarly, the switch port devices 215 and 220 may be a stand-alone unit such as a top-of-rack fabric extender on a server rack. The switch port devices 215 and 220 may also be integrated in the optical core itself, for example, as a line card.
US 2011/0129232 (Dou) teaches that it was known to use NICs in communicating sections of optical communication devices. See:
[0043] As practically demanded, the following component parts can be connected with the input/output port 805: an input section 806 (including a keypad, a mouse, etc.), an output section 807 (including a display, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), a liquid crystal display (LCD), and a speaker, etc.), a storing section 808 (including harddisk, etc), and a communicating section 809 (including a network interface card such as an LAN card, and a modem, etc.). The communicating section 809 executes communicating process via a network such as the Internet. On practical demand, a driver 810 can also be connected with the input/output port 805. A detachable medium 811, such as a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a magneto-optical disk, a semiconductor memory etc., can be mounted on the driver 810 as practically demanded to enable computer programs read therefrom to be installed in the storing section 808 as practically demanded. The computer may only consist of CPU 801, ROM 802 and RAM 803 connected via bus 804.
US 8,005,365 (Hoke) at FIG. 4 illustrates an optical communication device that includes the use of NICs 404, 406 operating with ports.
PNG
media_image8.png
428
536
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See also the top of col. 6:
(38) In the embodiment of FIG. 4, the microprocessor 402 interfaces with the host computing device to receive programming instructions. The programming instructions are received by the LAN simple network management protocol (SNMP) ports 424 and/or 428 that are connected to network interface cards (NIC) 404 and/or 406 in the microprocessor 402.
US 2021/0111862 (Dadwal) teaches that it was known for NICs to include clocks. See:
[0019] FIG. 3 illustrates a flowchart 300 for heterogeneous clock management, in accordance with some embodiments. The heterogeneous clock management may be performed with an integrated circuit architecture that provides hardware synchronization between a core's or CPU's TSC, and the clock of an enabled input/output (IO). The clock management component 305 may perform functions to correlate the clocks. The clock management component may perform an operation 315 to detect the clocks internal to the integrated circuit, or SOC. For example, this may include the TSC, the timed GPIO, ART, or proprietary clock to the integrated circuit. The clock management component 305 may perform an operation 320 to detect external clocks, such a network interface clocks. For example, the Intel® 1210 network interface card (MC) by Intel® Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif. may include a precision time protocol (PTP) clock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2636