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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application filed on 8/13/2024. Claims 1-17 are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 “.. in response to determining that the first packet sending port being an edge
port”, It should read “… determining that the first packet sending port is an edge port.
Claim 5 “… sending the first data packet to a second network device.”
Claim 6 “.. in response to the initial data packet without the sequence number, updating the new local store sequence number.” The phrase “local store” is inconsistent with “local stored” used two lines prior. Additionally, the phrase “in response to the initial data packet without the sequence number” should read “in response to determining that the initial data packet is without….”. . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4,5,6 are rejected for lack of antecedent basis for the reasons listed below.
Claim 4 “... determining the first packet sending port” has no prior antecedent basis in claim 1 or claim 2. Claim 2 introduces “a first packet sending port” at the very end of the clam, but claim 4 references it as if it were already established before that step.
Claim 5, “.. performs encapsulation processing on the initial data packet to obtain a first data packet carrying the sequence number encapsulation…”
The sequence number encapsulating is introduced with “the”, but it was never previously defined in claim 5.
Claim 6: “.. to obtain the local stored sequence number associated with a feature..” and “.. updating the new local store sequence number…
Neither of these terms has an antecedent basis. They appear suddenly with definite articles.
Claim 6: “.. to obtain a second packet of the initial data packet; determining a second packet sending port corresponding to the second packet according to the second packet…”
The phrase “a second packet” is used, but logically, the invention is generating a sequence number or an encapsulated packet, not a completely new “second packet”. Furthermore, using “the second packet” right after introducing “a second packet” is confusing.
Claims 1 and 9 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.
Claim 1 recite recites “sending the first data packet to a processing unit… such that the processing unit… acquires… and processes…”. The phrasing introduces a separate functional entity (the “processing unit”) within a method step, and do not clarify whether the claimed method is being executed by the system as a whole, or if the” processing unit” is separate structural limitation performing independent steps. Additionally, “such that” introduces a functional result rather than a clear, consequential method stoep. It is unclear if the act of “sending” automatically causes these subsequent steps or if the subsequent steps are independent limitations.
Claim 9 recite a methos applied to a network system comprising a first and second network device. It later recites sending a packet to a “processing unit”, and subsequently states that the “second network device acquires… “in response tot eh processing unit’s determination. It is completely unclear from the record where this “processing unit” resides. Is it a component inside the second network device, or is it a separate, third entity within the network system. The applicant should clarify the physical or logical location of the processing unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the specification does not clearly describe or enable the limitation of “updating the local stored sequence umber associated with “a feature of the initial packet” to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, or to allow a person skilled in the art to make and use it without undue experimentation. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a person skilled int eh art would reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filling date. Claim 6 introduces the broad concept of “local stored sequence number” being associated with a “feature” of the initial data packet. However, a review of the specification, particularly paragraph [0079] discloses that the phrase “a feature of the initial data packet” is simply stated without any elaboration, definition or structural framework. There is no disclosure explaining what structural, mathematical or programmatic attributes of data packet constitutes this “feature” (e.g. whether it is Layer 2 MAC address, a Layer 3 IP address, A VLAN tag or a packet protocol type. etc.). The use of the generic term “feature” in the claims represents an impermissible, broad functional placeholder. The disclosure fails to demonstrate that the inventor possessed a specific method for identifying and utilizing features to manage the sequence numbers.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites: receiving a data packet; checking if it is specific kind of packet (a “BUM” packet); reading a number (a “sequence number”) from that packet; comparing that number to a saved number to decide whether to keep or discard the packet. The sequence of the steps is an abstract idea. It falls under the categories of mental processes and mathematical concepts/data organization. Taking out all the technical network terminology, the claim describes a basic logic framework of collecting information, reading a numerical value, comparing that value to a base line rule, and sorting the item based on the result. This type of data sorting I and mathematical comparison can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, which have been routinely determined to be abstract.
Step 2A, Prong two: Even though the specification states that this method solves a technical problem by saving memory cache space on a network switch chip, the language of the independent claims does not actually capture this improvement. As written, claim 1 simply states that the packet is sent to a generic “processing unit” to perform the comparison. It does not limit the “processing unit” to a specific, separate hardware architecture (like coprocessor or DPU running alongside a primary switch chip) that would physically reduce cache strain. Because the claim does not recite a specific physical structure arrangement, it only takes the abstract concept of sorting numbers and says “apply it on a generic processing computer”. Therefore, it is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: the claim elements individually and as a whole, they do not add significantly more. The data packets, BUM packets, sequence numbers, and generic processing unite are all well known, standard components used in network routing. The steps simply describe the standard, logical flow of a sorting rule executed on a standard computer. It does not introduce any unique hardware bypass or an inventive physical setup. It simply uses standard tools to execute an abstract mathematical sorting process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record which are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights