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 .
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/782,396 last filed on January 02nd, 2026.
Claim 10 was amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined, directed to ENHANCED ROUTING PERFORMANCE.
Upon further review of the last interview discussion notes, and in view of the latest applicant’s representative’s response, the examiner reviewed the applied reference(s) and respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) interpretations and § 112 (b) rejection, the applicant’s representative argued that the interpretation was improper, that the limitation(s) as a whole should have been considered, and arguing that besides the word “circuit”, that describing the operations of the circuit somehow adds further structure.
In response and upon further review, the Examiner is withdrawing the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) interpretations and § 112 (b) rejection.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, using Underwood, and using independent claim 1 for discussion purposes, the applicant’s representative primarily argued that Underwood does not disclose of the limitation features directed to the two different routing engines, coupled to the cache, and further performing different types of routing of the packets from the cache, through a connected communication interface.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Underwood discloses of an overall system with routing engine(s) that can be incorporated within a device or apparatus, representing a network interface card or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) of a NIC, which means the routed packets are routed through and involve this interface. The representative referenced Underwood ¶ 12, but the section again seemingly highlights all the claimed elements. Looking at variations between Figures 1 and 6, we can see one or more host interfaces (e.g., 110 or 132 for the NIC/port macro interfacing), two or more routing engines (e.g., found in Figs. 1 and 6), and multiple caches/host memory access sections (found in Figs. 1 and 6), and a “control circuit” unit or Underwood’s command unit (602) in Fig. 6’s variation.
Also, looking at Fig. 1, we can interpret packets being routed through a host interface, for internally routed traffic. The system of components within this device/apparatus can also include multiple short term memory caches or a direct memory access unit to longer term host memory, and there are at least two different routing engines, each routing engine directed to routing packets differently, depending on the identified type of packet. For example, an instruction can come in, via the host interface, and instruct some data to be read which would be routed to one routing engine and involve some cache. Or, the instruction can involve writing some data, routing to a different engine type, and which would also involve memory/cache for the data to be written and/or updated.
The representative also mentioned that Underwood does not consider the different types of routing engine variations found in dependent claim language, but those are separately addressed under different combinations with various secondary references. For further amendment considerations, please keep in mind how the secondary reference Budhia’s incorporated teachings would teach on these variations of routing engine types, with respect to like claims 7-11 as mentioned.
Please re/consider adding more details defining the difference between the type of packets and/or the different types of routing or reconsider incorporating dependent claims, all of which were previously considered during the last interview discussion. For at least these reasons, the Examiner remains unpersuaded at this time.
The other independent claims 12 and 18 were similarly argued following claim 1 and thus were similarly rejected under the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0143180 A1 to Underwood et al. (referred to hereafter as “Underwood”).
As to claim 1, Underwood discloses a communication device comprising:
a communication interface (host/network interface component like 110, e.g., Underwood: Figs. 1 and 6 and ¶¶ 25);
a cache coupled with the communication interface (host memory or buffer, e.g., Underwood: Fig. 1 and 6);
a first routing engine coupled with the cache (a first datatype engine (116 vs 120 or 608 vs 610), e.g., Underwood: Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6 and corresponding ¶¶ 24-29 and 53-54);
a second routing engine coupled with the cache, wherein the first routing engine and the second routing engine perform routing of packets from the cache through the communication interface using different types of routing (a second datatype engine (116 vs 120 or 608 vs 610), e.g., Underwood: Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6 and corresponding ¶¶ 24-29 and 53-54);
a control circuit controlling operation of the communication switch (command unit 602, e.g., Underwood: Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 53-55), wherein the control circuit causes the communication device to:
read a packet from the cache (This section of steps here are all covered within Underwood’s examples, as the system can receive a message/request via the command unit, and respond accordingly, to read a data packet from the system/host memory storage, and then direct it to the appropriate datatype engine afterwards, e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 53-55);
identify a packet type for the packet (Following the same subsection here, the system identifies the data packet and determines which datatype engine to send the packet onwards to, e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 53-55);
in response to the identified packet type being a first packet type, providing the packet to the first routing engine (Following the same subsection here, some data can be routed to an inbound/outbound routing engine (e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 53-55), and which also still involves caches or host memory and would be routed through either the NIC or host interface); and
in response to the identified packet type being a second packet type, providing the packet to the second routing engine (Following the same subsection here, some data can be routed to the other of either the inbound/outbound routing engine (e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 53-55) and again which also still involves caches or host memory and would be routed through either the NIC or host interface).
As to claim 2, Underwood further discloses the communication device of claim 1, wherein identifying the packet type for the packet is based on header information for the packet (The packets all contain header information, an address, a packet length associated with the data, and all of which the system checks for, and so the header is checked as part of the determination process to decide on where to send the packet, e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 39 and 50).
As to claim 3, Underwood further discloses the communication device of claim 1, wherein identifying the packet type for the packet is based on a predefined packet length (Similar to claim 2, the packets themselves each contain a packet length information, associated with the data, which the system will check for as part of the determination process to decide on where to send the packet, e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 39 and 50).
As to claim 12, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 18, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0143180 A1 to Underwood in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,449,426 B1 to Gupta, Anish Kumar (referred to hereafter as “Gupta”).
As to claim 4, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 1, wherein identifying the packet type for the packet is based on an opcode for the packet (While Underwood does not expressly disclose of this feature, Gupta more expressly discloses of a similar system wherein an opcode is included (e.g., Gupta: col. 6, ll. 35-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combined and incorporate this within Underwood’s overall system and teachings because it would allow the resulting system to have this additional piece of information and affect the routing of the packet, which can be beneficial).
As to claim 5, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 4, wherein the first packet type is identified in response to the packet being a Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) packet (While Underwood does not expressly disclose of MTU sizes, Gupta more expressly discloses of this concept by having the MTU size information along with the other metadata information for each packet (e.g., Gupta: col. 7, ll. 3-27). By having this feature combined and incorporated, it would have been obvious that this can be incorporated within any and all packets that the system is dealing with.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combined and incorporate knowing the MTU sizes within Underwood’s overall system and teachings because this would allow the resulting system to know the sizes and have solutions for how to handle packets that are above or below the MTU size limits, such as having to add additional fragmentation steps if needed. Once again, knowing this additional information would be beneficial and can lead to impacts in latency, throughput, and efficacy).
As to claim 13, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0143180 A1 to Underwood in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,449,426 B1 to Gupta and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2011/0131654 A1 to Taneja et al. (referred to hereafter as “Taneja”).
As to claim 6, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 5, wherein the second packet type is identified in response to the packet being an ACKnowledgement (ACK) packet (While Underwood and Gupta both do not expressly discloses any packets identified as ACK packets, Taneja more expressly discloses of this concept as Taneja describes certain examples with how a system deals with received ACK packets (e.g., Taneja: ¶¶ 245, 248, and 259). Once again, by having this feature combined and incorporated, it would have been obvious that this can be incorporated within any and all packets that the system is dealing with.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Taneja’s teachings within Underwood’s overall system and teachings because this would allow the resulting system to know how to adapt and handle the packets more efficiently depending on the responses and the scenarios).
As to claim 15, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 19, see the similar corresponding rejections of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0143180 A1 to Underwood.
As to claim 7, Underwood further discloses the communication device of claim 1, wherein the first routing engine comprises an adaptive routing engine (Underwood talks about modern adaptive routing (e.g., Underwood: ¶¶ 15, 17 and Fig. 6), which Fig. 6’s example illustrates such a case with being adaptive towards how the system routes their packets between at least two possibilities.
Even if the routing engines were not specifically referred to as adaptive routing engines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to manipulate and switch the first, second, or any other number of routing engines to perform in any other number of ways, as representative of being adaptive engines).
As to claim 16, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0143180 A1 to Underwood in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,449,426 B1 to Gupta and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2025/0150396 A1 to Budhia et al. (referred to hereafter as “Budhia”).
As to claim 8, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 7, wherein the second routing engine comprises a random routing engine (While Underwood does not expressly disclose of using this type of engine, Budhia more expressly discloses of this randomly assigned approach (e.g., Budhia: ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Budhia’s teachings within Underwood’s overall system and teachings because this would provide the resulting system with more options with their routing approaches).
As to claim 9, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 7, wherein the second routing engine comprises a hash-based routing engine (While Underwood does not expressly disclose of using this type of engine, Budhia more expressly discloses of this hash based approach (e.g., Budhia: ¶¶ 20 and 90).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Budhia’s teachings within Underwood’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 10, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 7, wherein the second routing engine comprises a weighted Equal-Cost Multi-Path routing engine (While Underwood does not expressly disclose of using this type of ECMP routing engine, Budhia more expressly discloses of this ECMP approach (e.g., Budhia: ¶¶ 20, 84, 111-112, and 120).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Budhia’s teachings within Underwood’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 11, Underwood does not fully further disclose of the communication device of claim 7, wherein the second routing engine comprises a round robin routing engine (While Underwood does not expressly disclose of using this type of engine, Budhia more expressly discloses of this round robin approach (e.g., Budhia: ¶ 65).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Budhia’s teachings within Underwood’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 17, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejections of claims 7 and 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights