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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 July 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 30 July 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 30 July 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12088504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent discloses an integrated circuit to be used in network forwarding operations associated with at least one network destination in a network (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit to be used in network forwarding operations associated with at least one network destination), the integrated circuit comprising:
configurable pipeline circuitry to be used in packet data processing (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses configurable ingress pipelines to process packet data received by the integrated circuit); and
traffic manager circuitry to be used in packet data queuing/dequeuing associated with the configurable pipeline circuitry (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses traffic manager circuitry to (1) queue the packet data processed by the configurable ingress pipelines, and (2) dequeue the packet data queued by the traffic manager circuitry);
wherein:
the packet data processing is to be based, at least in part, upon match table data that is configurable to comprise Ternary Content-Addressable Memory (TCAM) match table data and/or exact match table data (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses the packet data processing is to be based, at least in part, upon match table data that is configurable to comprise Ternary Content-Addressable Memory (TCAM) match table data and/or exact match table data);
the integrated circuit is configurable to generate queue state data:
in response, at least in part, to the packet data queuing/dequeuing by the traffic manager circuitry (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit is to generate queue state data: in response, at least in part, to packet data queuing/dequeuing by the traffic manager circuitry); and
based upon queue occupancy information and/or queue identification data (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses based upon queue occupancy information and queue identification data of the packet data queued by the traffic manager circuitry);
the integrated circuit is configurable to perform at least one congestion-related packet data processing decision based upon the queue state data (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses at least one pipeline comprised in the configurable ingress pipelines and the configurable egress pipelines is configurable to perform at least one congestion-related packet data processing decision based upon the queue state data); and
the at least one congestion-related packet data processing decision is configurable to comprise at least one packet data queue/drop decision (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses the at least one congestion-related packet data processing decision is configurable to comprise at least one packet data queue/drop decision).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1.
Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent further discloses wherein:
the queue state data is to be used in association with at least one mapping that is based upon memory location data and the queue identification data (Claim 1 of the '504 Patent discloses the queue state data is to be used in association with at least one mapping that is based upon memory location data and the queue identification data).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1.
Claim 2 of the ‘504 Patent further discloses wherein:
the configurable pipeline circuitry is configurable to use the queue state data in association with at least one flow-related statistical determination (Claim 2 of the '504 Patent discloses the ingress pipelines are configurable to use the queue state data in association with at least one flow-related statistical determination).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1.
Claim 3 of the ’504 Patent discloses wherein:
the queue occupancy information indicates one or more of: queue depth information; and/or buffer usage information (Claim 3 of the '504 Patent discloses the queue occupancy information indicates one or more of: queue depth information; and/or buffer usage information).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1.
Claim 4 of the ‘504 Patent discloses wherein:
the at least one congestion-related packet data processing decision is configurable to comprise one or more of: at least one queue re-assignment decision; and/or at least one threshold-based queue/drop decision (Claim 4 of the '504 Patent discloses the at least one congestion-related packet data processing decision is configurable to comprise one or more of: at least one queue re-assignment decision; and/or at least one threshold-based queue/drop decision).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1.
Claim 5 of the ‘504 Patent discloses wherein:
the integrated circuit also comprises: switch fabric and replication circuitry for use in: the packet data queuing/dequeuing; and/or packet data replication for use in packet data broadcast or multicast (Claim 5 of the '504 Patent discloses the traffic manager circuitry comprises: queues for use in the packet data queuing; and the integrated circuit also comprises: switch fabric and replication circuitry for use in: directing the packet data to the queues; and replicating at least one portion of the packet data for use in packet data broadcast or multicast).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights