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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 7/30/24 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining the round-trip time to the egress scheduler; setting the first threshold substantially equal to the round-trip time multiplied by the first rate plus a second threshold for requesting egress credits at a third rate smaller than the second rate”. The word “plus” is not clear. Appropriate correction is required. For examining purposes, the office will consider two different threshold, a first and a second thresholds are being set.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “the first threshold” is being objected for lack of consistency. Applicant is advised to amend “the first threshold” to “the first threshold queue size” in order to maintain consistency in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claim 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “determining a round-trip time to an egress scheduler associated with an egress port”; “identifying a plurality of egress credit rates for the egress port, the plurality of egress credit rates including a first egress credit rate and a second egress credit rate higher than the first egress credit rate”; “determining a first threshold queue size for transitioning between requesting a first egress credit rate and a second credit rate, the first threshold based on the round-trip time to the egress port multiplied by the second egress credit rate” “and storing the first threshold in an egress rate table for use by a virtual output queue to select an egress credit rate based on the first threshold queue size”.
The limitation of “determining a round-trip time to an egress scheduler associated with an egress port” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually calculating the a round trip time.
The limitation of “identifying a plurality of egress credit rates for the egress port, the plurality of egress credit rates including a first egress credit rate and a second egress credit rate higher than the first egress credit rate” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Identifying in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking or guessing a plurality of credit rates.
The limitation of “determining a first threshold queue size for transitioning between requesting a first egress credit rate and a second credit rate, the first threshold based on the round-trip time to the egress port multiplied by the second egress credit rate” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Determining a threshold, in this encompasses mental calculation performed by a user in order to determine a threshold.
The limitation of “and storing the first threshold in an egress rate table for use by a virtual output queue to select an egress credit rate based on the first threshold queue size” under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses the user manually writing or storing the data with pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional element. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the first egress credit rate is the division of a credit size by the round-trip time to the egress port”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the second egress credit rate is a multiple of the first egress credit rate”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “determining a second threshold queue size for transitioning between requesting the second egress credit rate and a third egress credit rate higher than the second egress credit rate, the second threshold based on the round-trip time to the egress port multiplied by the third egress credit rate; and storing the second threshold queue size in the egress rate table”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the first egress credit rate, second egress credit rate, and third egress credit rate are a geometric progression”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the round-trip time is based on a number of hops from the networking device to the egress scheduler”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites “selecting an egress credit rate for the virtual output queue based on the egress rate table and a size of the virtual output queue; and sending a request for the selected egress credit rate to the egress scheduler”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites “determining that the size of the virtual output queue passes the first threshold and selecting another egress credit rate based on the determination”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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. Claims 8 and 10 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the phrase "substantially" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "substantially"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined. Applicants are required to make the terms that are used to define the invention clear and precise, so that the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant can be ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 1, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022/089715 to Roberts et al.
a. As per claim 1, Roberts et al teaches a networking device with credit request thresholds based on egress credit delay time, comprising: an ingress port that receives packets for processing (See page 10, lines 10-12, The processor 102 receives the data packet pertaining to one of the one or more data flows, from the data flow input port 106 );a plurality of virtual output queues each associated with a respective egress port, each virtual output queue configured to send packets to the egress port based on received egress credits (See page 11, lines 17-23, updating each arrival of a data packet 302 in a virtual queue from a list of virtual queues and forwarding the received data packet 302 through a FIFO queue 306 to the output port); and a packet processor configured to: assign packets to one of the plurality of virtual output queues based on respective destinations of the packets (See page 11, lines 17-23) ; determine an egress credit rate for a first virtual output queue of the plurality of virtual output queues from an egress rate table of egress credit rates based on the size of the first virtual output queue (See page 11, lines 17-31 and page 12, lines 1-5, The received data packet 302 is forwarded through the FIFO queue 306 for transmission if the identified virtual queue size does not exceed the threshold minimum size. The received data packet 302 is then added to the virtual queue to which the received data packet 302 pertains.A service capacity is determined based on the update time interval and the credit allowance is increased based on the determined service capacity. First, the amount of service capacity accumulated since receiving the previous data packet is added to the credit allowance. Separately, at appropriate time instants that may or may not coincide with the data packet arrivals, the credit allowance is used to reduce the occupancy of the target queue of the one or more data flows that are active. The appropriate time instants may occur at least as frequently as the data packet arrivals but are otherwise freely defined and may or may not coincide with the data packet arrivals); the egress rate table having thresholds for selecting the egress credit rate based on an egress credit delay time including at least a round-trip time to the respective egress port associated with the first virtual output queue (See page 10, lines 1-12, page 11, lines 1-4, lines 10-15, page 13, lines 13-15, The processor 102 determines a service capacity based on an update time interval, and increases a credit allowance based on the determined service capacity. At a time instant that may or may not coincide with the data packet arrival, the processor 102 reduces the target queue, by an amount based on the credit allowance size, and reduces the credit allowance by the same amount.); and request egress credits for the first virtual output queue at the egress credit rate (See page 6, lines 3-6).
b. As per claim 9, Roberts et al teaches a method for managing egress credits across networking devices, comprising: receiving packets at an ingress port of a networking device (See page 10, lines 10-12, The processor 102 receives the data packet pertaining to one of the one or more data flows, from the data flow input port 106); assigning received packets associated with a first egress port to a first virtual output queue based on respective egress ports of the packets (See page 11, lines 17-23, updating each arrival of a data packet 302 in a virtual queue from a list of virtual queues and forwarding the received data packet 302 through a FIFO queue 306 to the output port 108); requesting egress credits from an egress scheduler for the egress port at a first rate based on a queue size of the virtual output queue (See page 10, lines 5-6, The processor 102 determines a service capacity based on an update time interval, and increases a credit allowance based on the determined service capacity); requesting egress credits from the egress scheduler for the egress port at a second rate, smaller than the first rate, when the queue size is below a first threshold that is based on an egress credit delay time including at least a round-trip time to the egress scheduler (See page 13, lines 13-15 and page 15, lines 21-23, the target queue is reduced by an amount based on the credit allowance size, and the credit allowance is reduced by the same amount by the processor); and sending packets to the egress port from the virtual output queue based on received egress credits (See page 10, lines 1-12 and page 11, lines 17-23, updating each arrival of a data packet 302 in a virtual queue from a list of virtual queues and forwarding the received data packet 302 through a FIFO queue 306 to the output port);
c. As per claim 12, Roberts teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Roberts teaches selecting an egress rate table that specifies the first rate, the second rate, and the first threshold based on the round-trip time to the egress scheduler (See page 18, lines 23-29)..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
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.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/089715 to Roberts et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0153683 to McAlpine.
a. As per claim 3, Roberts teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Roberts fails to teach wherein the egress rate table is based on a number of hops to a networking device associated with the first virtual output queue.
McAlpine teaches wherein the egress rate table is based on a number of hops to a networking device associated with the first virtual output queue (See paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Mc Alpine in the claimed invention of Roberts in order to produce traffic rate control in the network.
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/089715 to Roberts et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0098818 to Matthews et al.
a. As per claim 4, Roberts teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Roberts fails to teach HHwherein the packet processor is further configured to determine the egress credit delay time and set at least one threshold in the egress rate table based on the egress credit delay time.
Matthews et al teaches wherein the packet processor is further configured to determine the egress credit delay time and set at least one threshold in the egress rate table based on the egress credit delay time (See paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Matthew et al in the claimed invention of Roberts in order to determine eligibility for cut-through and continue uninterrupted communication of data (See paragraph [0038]).
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/089715 to Roberts et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 7420919 to Toude-Fallah et al.
a. As per claim 6, Roberts et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Roberts et al fails to teach wherein the credit rates of the table are a geometric progression.
Toude-Fallah et al teaches wherein a fair rate can be adjusted by multiplying the previous fair rate by a flow ratio, and a self-convergence factor. (See col. 5, lines 19-30).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Toude-Fallah et al in the claimed invention of Roberts in order to generate a geometric progression of the credit rates by multiplying previous credit rate by a constant.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2, 5, 7, 11 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.
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2003/0137935 to Kagan et al teaches Static Flow Rate Control.
U.S. Publication No. 2014/0161135 to Acharya et al teaches Output Queue Latency Behavior for Input Queue Based Device.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444