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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-3, 7-10, 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Application No. 18/811304
Patent No. 11,381,512
1. A method comprising: configuring a port extender to multiplex a network device port across a plurality of ports on the port extender; determining that an input buffer of a network device, connected to the network device port, is congested; based on the determining, generating a priority-based flow control (PFC) frame that indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested; and sending the PFC frame via the network device port to at least one output queue of the port extender, wherein the PFC frame causes the at least one output queue of the port extender to stop dequeuing data.
1. A method comprising: configuring a port extender to multiplex a network device port across a plurality of ports on the port extender; determining that passing traffic through a first port of the plurality of ports is degraded due to network congestion; generating a Priority-based Flow Control (PFC) frame identifying the first port as a first priority value in a priority vector of the PFC frame; and sending the PFC frame via the network device port, wherein the PFC frame causes a network device coupled to the network device port to discontinue sending data for transmission from the first port.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the PFC frame indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested through a priority vector of the PFC frame.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of ports is assigned to a respective priority in the priority vector.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the PFC frame indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested by using a predetermined value for the priority vector of the PFC frame.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein a predetermined value of the priority vector of the PFC frame identifies all of the plurality of ports.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the PFC frame causes an external flow control message to be sent to halt data being sent to at least one port of the plurality of ports on the port extender.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first port of the plurality of ports is degraded due to network congestion comprises receiving an external flow control message at the first port.
Claims 8-10, 14-17 are rejected under the same rationale as shown above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,132,662. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Application No. 18/811,304
U.S. Patent 12,132,662
1. A method comprising: configuring a port extender to multiplex a network device port across a plurality of ports on the port extender; determining that an input buffer of a network device, connected to the network device port, is congested; based on the determining, generating a priority-based flow control (PFC) frame that indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested; and sending the PFC frame via the network device port to at least one output queue of the port extender, wherein the PFC frame causes the at least one output queue of the port extender to stop dequeuing data.
1. A method comprising: configuring a port extender to multiplex a network device port across a plurality of ports on the port extender; determining that an input buffer for the network device port is overloaded; generating a priority-based flow control (PFC) frame identifying that the network device port is congested, the PFC frame including a predetermined value to signify congestion in a link between the port extender and a network device coupled to the network device port; and sending the PFC frame via the network device port, wherein the PFC frame causes the network device coupled to the network device port to discontinue sending data for transmission from the plurality of ports on the port extender.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the PFC frame indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested through a priority vector of the PFC frame.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the PFC frame identifies that the network device port is congested through a priority vector of the PFC frame.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the PFC frame indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested by using a predetermined value for the priority vector of the PFC frame.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the PFC frame identifies that the network device port is congested by using the predetermined value for the priority vector of the PFC frame.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the port extender is configured to multiplex the network device port across the plurality of ports on the port extender based on a special tag.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the port extender is configured to multiplex the network device port across the plurality of ports on the port extender based on a special tag.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the input buffer of the network device is congested is based on an amount of data in the input buffer of the network device.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the input buffer for the network device port is overloaded is based on an amount of data in the input buffer.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the input buffer of the network device is congested is based on a rate of data filling the input buffer of the network device.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the input buffer for the network device port is overloaded is based on a rate of information filling the input buffer.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the PFC frame causes an external flow control message to be sent to halt data being sent to at least one port of the plurality of ports on the port extender.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the PFC frame causes the network device to halt data transmissions for a plurality of output queues associated with the plurality of ports on the port extender.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinha et al. US 20180316616.
Regarding claim 8, an apparatus (electronic system, Figure 7) comprising: a network device (the electronic system including one or more of the controlling bridge devices, the aggregate port extender device, element 104, the port extender devices, element 106A-C, and the end station devices, element 108, Figure 7, para. 0076); a port extender (port extender, Figure 1, element 106A-C) in communication with the network device via a network device port, the port extender having a plurality of ports (ports, Figure 1, elements 31 and 32), configured to transmit and receive data from one or more networks; and at least one processor (processor(s) Figure 7, element 712) configured to: multiplex the network device port across the plurality of ports (multiple controlling bridge devices, Figure 1, element 102A-B, for redundancy and/or load balancing purposes, para. 0017); determine that an input buffer of the network device is congested; generate a priority-based flow control (PFC) frame indicating that the input buffer of network device is congested and the end station sends the PFC frame via the network device port to at least one output queue of the port extender (the port extender device, element 106B, includes one or more downstream queues associated with port 31, and one or more downstream queues associated with port 32 and can include separate queues for different classes and/or priorities of traffic, para. 0031, the port extender device 106B can become congested either because it received a PFC message from the downlink end station device 108E and stopped transmitting downlink traffic having the specified priorities to the downlink end station device, congestion in the port extender device cause it to send PFC messages to the uplink aggregate port extender device to flow control traffic in the congested priorities, para. 0035), wherein the PFC frame causes the at least one output queue of the port extender to stop dequeuing data (when the aggregate port extender device, element 104 and the port extender device, element 106B, receives a PFC message, the devices will pause all traffic in the flow controlled priorities and block traffic from sources responsible for congestion as well as traffic from sources that may not responsible for congestion, para. 0051).
Regarding claim 9, The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the PFC frame indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested through a priority vector of the PFC frame (when the port extender device, element 106B, detects congestion with regard to the one or more downstream queues associated with port 31, the port extender device transmits an out-of-band end to end flow control message to the controlling bridge device including a list of one or more priorities that identifies the priorities that should be flow controlled by the controlling bridge device to reduce congestion at the identified port of the port extender device, para. 0040).
Regarding claim 11, The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to multiplex the network device port across the plurality of ports based on a special tag (the devices monitor occupancy of the one or more upstream queues to determine when one of the upstream queues is becoming congested by utilizing a set of counters, where each counter monitors an amount of traffic stored in each of the upstream queues by source device of the traffic and/or by priorities and/or traffic classes of traffic from the source, para. 0052).
Regarding claim 12, The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the input buffer for the network device is congested based on an amount of data in the input buffer of the network device ((the devices monitor occupancy of the one or more upstream queues to determine when one of the upstream queues is becoming congested by utilizing a set of counters, where each counter monitors an amount of traffic stored in each of the upstream queues by source device of the traffic and/or by priorities and/or traffic classes of traffic from the source, para. 0052).
Regarding claim 13, The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the input buffer of the network device is congested based on a rate of data filling the input buffer of the network device (a queue may build up if the ingress rate at which traffic is offered and stored in the queue is higher than the egress rate, limited by the maximum depth or allowed build up in the queue, the controlling bridge device can pause or rate limit packets destined to end station device through the of the port extender device that are associated with the priorities identified in the end to end flow control message and continue to pause or rate limit traffic for a pre-determined duration, para. 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 14, The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the PFC frame sent by the at least one processor causes an external flow control message to be sent to halt data being sent to at least one port of the plurality of ports (a port extender device receives an end to end flow control message from an upstream network device, such as the controlling bridge device, that includes a number of the port for which upstream traffic should be flow controlled, and a priorities list and a duration of time, the port extender device generates a PFC message based at least in part on the end to end flow control message by mapping the priorities list to a priority enable bit vector of the PFC message and the amount of time in the end to end flow control message to a time field of the PFC message and transmits the PFC message to the end station device which implements flow control with respect to the upstream traffic associated with one or more of the priorities in the priority enable bit vector, such as for a period of time indicated in the PFC message, para. 0071-0072).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Zhang et al. US 20220046465.
Regarding claim 10, The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the PFC frame indicates that the input buffer of the network device is congested (when the aggregate port extender device, element 104 and the port extender device, element 106B, receives a PFC message, the devices will pause all traffic in the flow controlled priorities and block traffic from sources responsible for congestion as well as traffic from sources that may not responsible for congestion, para. 0051).
Sinha does not expressly disclose by using a predetermined value for the priority vector of the PFC frame. Zhang discloses for priority-based flow control, PFC, implementation, once the buffer threshold at the receiver node is reached, a MAC flow control duration is determined for the various priority levels, para. 0053. Zhang discloses information indicative of length of time of the MAC flow control in the embodiment in which the MAC flow control in the PFC includes a priority enable vector for indicating if MAC flow control should be enabled at specific priority levels of the plurality of priority levels and a plurality of time values corresponding to the plurality of priority levels, para. 0055, Figure 3. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Sinha’s PFC and priority vector to include Zhang’s priority and time values. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to provide an improved method and apparatus for management of packet delay, para. 0005.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. US 12143303 discloses when a first link from the first network device to a second network device is congested, the first network device adjusts a first cost corresponding to the first traffic type to a second cost and the first network device sends the first traffic to a third network device via a second link from the first network device to the third network device.
Feuerstraeter et al. US 20030123393 discloses priority-based flow control in an Ethernet architecture by identifying a receive capability associated with one or more priority levels of Ethernet traffic for a network device, and generating a control message including a flow control priority level, the flow control priority level denoting the identified priority level above or below which the network device has the ability to receive Ethernet traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. 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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights