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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application as modified by the preliminary amendment filed on September 12, 2024. Claims 22-41 are now pending in the present application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 22-27, 30-36, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (hereinafter Lee) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0281102 A1) in view of FRIEDMAN et al. (hereinafter Friedman) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0116122 A1).
Regarding claims 22, 31, and 40, Lee teaches and discloses a method and a network device (switch device, figure 2), comprising:
an ingress port (receiving ports, 208-1-n, figure 2) to receive a packet flow of packets with one or more common header fields and identified by a flow identifier (Flow ID) that is unique within the ingress port ([0005]; [0047]; [0048]; [0091]; teaches receiving packets via the receiving ports where the packets includes common header field and Flow ID that is unique with the receiving ports);
an egress port (transmission ports, 213-1-n, figure 2) coupled to an end host (destination device, 11, figure 1) via an egress link (communication link between the switch device and the destination device, figure 1), the egress port being associated with an egress buffer (output queue, figure 2) ([0005]; [0042]; [0047]; teaches transmission ports coupled to destination devices via a communication link including output queues associated with the transmission ports); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (inherent component of the switch device; figure 2) storing instructions to: determine an event associated with a packet of the packet flow at the egress buffer; determine a set of congestion parameters for a set of packets in the egress buffer, the set of packets associated with the event; determine whether a respective congestion parameter exceeds a corresponding threshold ([0005]; [0050]; [0052]; [0054]; [0094]; teaches determining an event such as the arrival of packets into the output queue and determining congestion of the output queues by determining if a congestion parameter, such as the amount of data in the output queue, exceeds a predetermined threshold); in response to the congestion parameter exceeding the corresponding threshold, send a message (congestion notification) indicating congestion associated with the packet flow at the egress buffer ([0005]; [0054]; [0096]; [0098]; teaches in response to the congestion parameter exceeding the predetermined threshold, sending a congestion notification indicating congestion associated with the flow at the output queues).
However, Lee may not explicitly disclose in response to the congestion parameter exceeding the corresponding threshold, send, to an upstream device via the ingress port, a message indicating congestion associated with the packet flow at the egress buffer.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Friedman teaches and suggests in response to the congestion parameter exceeding the corresponding threshold, send, to an upstream device (T0-T2, figures 1-2) via the ingress port (ingress ports, 502-0-N, figure 5A), a message (congestion notification message; [0027]) indicating congestion associated with the packet flow at the egress buffer ([0027]; [0037]; [0045]; [0048]; [0049]; [0050]; teaches in response to determining a congestion where packets in the egress queue exceeds a threshold/fill level, transmitting a congestion notification message to an upstream device, such as the transmitters (T0-T20), via the ingress ports).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in response to determining a congestion where packets in the egress queue exceeds a threshold/fill level, transmitting a congestion notification message to an upstream device, such as the transmitters, via the ingress ports as taught by Friedman with the method and network device as disclosed by Lee for the purpose of controlling and reducing network traffic congestion, as suggested by Friedman.
Regarding claims 23 and 32, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein the event comprises the packet arriving at the egress buffer, the set of packets including the packet ([0005]; [0050]; teaches the determining arrival of packets at the output queues).
Regarding claims 24 and 33, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein sending the message further comprises generating the message comprising a congestion notification (congestion notification) indicating the congestion prior to sending the packet via the egress link ([0054]; [0096]; teaches sending the congestion notification prior to further transmission of the packet).
Regarding claims 25 and 34, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein the event comprises the packet leaving the egress buffer, the set of packets excluding the packet ([0097]; [0098]; teaches determining the packet in the output queues are transmitted).
Regarding claim 26 and 35, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein sending the message further comprises generating the message with an acknowledgment indicating delivery of the packet, the acknowledgment comprising an indicator indicating the congestion ([0054]; [0085]; teaches transmitting a congestion confirmation response indicating the congestion).
Regarding claims 27 and 36, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein, in response to the congestion parameter not exceeding the corresponding threshold, sending the message further comprises generating the acknowledgment without the indicator ([0133]; teaches transmitting an acknowledgement without congestion indication).
Regarding claims 30 and 39, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein the set of congestion parameters comprises: an amount of data corresponding to the set of packets in the egress buffer; a number of the set of packets in the egress buffer; and a rate of change of a depth of the egress buffer ([0005]; [0050]; [0052]; [0054]; [0094]; teaches the congestion parameters includes determining congestion of the output queues by determining if the amount of data in the output queue exceeds a predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 41, Lee, as modified by Friedman, further teaches and suggests wherein the method further comprises: in response to the event comprising the packet arriving at the egress buffer ([0005]; [0050]; teaches the determining arrival of packets at the output queues), generating the message comprising a congestion notification (congestion notification) indicating the congestion prior to sending the packet via the egress link ([0054]; [0096]; teaches sending the congestion notification prior to further transmission of the packet); and in response to the event comprising the packet leaving the egress buffer ([0097]; [0098]; teaches determining the packet in the output queues are transmitted), generating the message comprising an acknowledgment indicating delivery of the packet, the acknowledgment comprising an indicator indicating the congestion ([0133]; teaches transmitting an acknowledgement without congestion indication).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 29, 37, and 38 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, and as indicated below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and fairly suggest monitoring an ingress buffer allocated for the packet flow at the ingress port; determining whether fine-grain flow control is enabled; in response to fine-grain flow control being enabled, determining whether a depth of the ingress buffer is lower than a first threshold; and in response to the depth of the ingress buffer being higher than the first threshold, initiating credit-based flow control for the ingress buffer; and in response to fine-grain flow control being disabled, determining whether a depth of the ingress buffer is higher than a second threshold; and in response to the depth of the ingress buffer being higher than the second threshold, enabling fine-grain flow control and initiating credit-based flow control for the ingress buffer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights