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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 contains minor grammatical errors and should be corrected in such a manner: “based on failure to achieve link with the another device using IEEE 802.3 compatible auto-negotiation[[,]]and apply auto-negotiation without use of Next Pages, lengthen an amount of time permitted in a subsequent attempt to achieve link with the another device using IEEE 802.3 compatible auto-negotiation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwong et al (US Pat. 6,457,055; hereinafter referred to as Hwong) in view of Texas Instruments DP83865 (hereinafter referred to as TI).
As per claim 1: Hwong teaches a network interface apparatus comprising:
an interface to a signal transmission medium (Fig. 1) and
a controller to:
attempt to form a link with another device through the interface by use of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802.3 auto-negotiation and a non-auto-negotiated mode, wherein the use of IEEE 802.3 auto- negotiation and a non-auto-negotiated mode comprises:
attempt to form a link with the another device using a last successful configuration that obtained link with the another device (Fig. 9, 906 and 908; all successful link attempts use the same stored configuration), wherein the last successful configuration is to specify a link speed mode and/or forward error correction (FEC) mode (col. 7, lines 22-35),
based on failure to achieve link with the another device using the last successful configuration (col. 7, line 43; process of Fig. 10 may initiate upon link fail), apply IEEE 802.3 auto-negotiation to attempt to form the link with the another device (Fig. 10, 1008).
Not explicitly disclosed is based on failure to achieve link with the another device using the IEEE 802.3 auto- negotiation, applying an available link speed mode and/or FEC mode to attempt to form the link with the another device. However, TI in an analogous art teaches applying an available link speed mode (page 42, section 3.3.2; “The default for AN Speed Fallback is that after five tries to achieve a stable link, the link speed will drop down to the next lower advertised speed”) when auto-negotiation fails (page 42, section 3.3.2, 1: Auto-negotiation failing to achieve a stable gigabit link”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply an available link speed when auto-negotiation fails. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because a speed fallback mode such as that of TI would have still allowed a link to be established.
As per claim 4: TI further teaches apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is to: based on failure of IEEE 802.3 auto-negotiation and the available link speed mode and/or FEC mode to achieve link with the another device, select and apply a next available link speed and FEC mode, wherein the next available link speed and/or FEC mode comprises one or more of: a lower link speed or lower FEC coding gain (page 42, section 3.3.2; “The default for AN Speed Fallback is that after five tries to achieve a stable link, the link speed will drop down to the next lower advertised speed”).
As per claim 5:
TI further teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the controller is to: based on failure to achieve link with the another device using the available link speed modes and/or FEC mode, attempt IEEE 802.3 auto-negotiation without use of Next Pages (page 24, Table 7, bit 15=0: Since TI teaches only two options for auto-negotiation with next pages, it would have been obvious to try and perform AN without next pages).
As per claim 7: TI further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the non-auto-negotiated mode comprises at least one link speed and at least one FEC mode (page 42, section 3.3.2; CRC and IE speed fallback).As per claim 9: Hwong teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interface comprises a physical layer interface (col. 8, lines 56-63).
As per claim 10: TI further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the another device comprises one or more of: a network interface, a switch, an optical module, a retimer circuit, a physical medium dependent (PMD) device, or a physical coding sublayer (PCS) device (page 2, 100BASE-TX PMD).
As per claim 11: Hwong teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising one or more of: switch, router, a media access controller (MAC), or packet processing device (Fig. 1, a packet processing device is necessary).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as per claim 1, including using at least one non-auto-negotiated modes interleaved with use of IEEE 802.3 compatible auto-negotiation.
(Figure 10, Parallel Detect 1004 in Hwong).
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected for the same reasons as per claims 4.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as per claim 5.
Claim(s) 2, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwong in view of TI in view of Brown et al (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0075613; hereinafter referred to as Brown).
As per claim 2: TI further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the IEEE 802.3 auto-negotiation permits use of Next Pages (page 43, section 3.3.6). Not explicitly disclosed is the apparatus comprises IEEE 802.3 compatible auto-negotiation compatible with Clause 73. However, Brown in an analogous art teaches auto-negotiation compatible with Clause 73 (paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Hwong et al to the system of Brown. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because Brown teaches devices that employ AN link establishment, and apply the teachings of Hwong would have produced expected results.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons as per claim 2.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwong in view of TI in view of Skirmont et al (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0066909; hereinafter referred to as Skirmont).
As per claim 8:
Hwong et al teach the apparatus of claim 7. Not explicitly disclosed is wherein the at least one FEC mode comprises one or more of: FEC disabled, IEEE 802.3 Clause 74 Firecode FEC, IEEE 802.3 Clause 91 Reed Solomon FEC, IEEE 802.3 Clause 108 Reed Solomon FEC, or Consortium Low Latency Reed Solomon FEC. However, Skirmont in an analogous art teaches IEEE 802.3 Clause 74 Firecode FEC (paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the FEC technique of clause 74 as taught by Skirmont. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it was a known exemplary FEC technique (paragraph 24).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as per claim 8.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwong in view of TI in view of Chakrabarti et al (US Pat. 8,813,223; hereinafter referred to as Chakrabarti).
As per claim 12:
Hwong et al teach the apparatus of claim 1. Not explicitly disclosed is further comprising one or more of: a rack, server, or data center. However, Chakrabarti in an analogous art teaches a server (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a server in the system of Hwong. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because a server could have been used to transmit data, as shown by Chakrabarti.
As per claim 20:
Hwong et al teach the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 19. Not explicitly disclosed is comprising one of more of: a driver or firmware. However, Chakrabarti teaches that the modules may be embodied as software or firmware (col. 3, lines 60-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teachings of Hwong et al in firmware. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the use of hardware, software, or firmware to implement a system would have been within the skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as shown by Chakrabarti.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record teach or fairly suggest: based on failure to achieve link with the another device using IEEE 802.3 compatible auto-negotiation, apply auto-negotiation without use of Next Pages, lengthen an amount of time permitted in a subsequent attempt to achieve link with the another device using IEEE 802.3 compatible auto-negotiation; particularly in combination with each and every limitation of intervening claims 4 and 5 and parent claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/STEVE N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111