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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on March 14, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently amended, and claims 21-23 are canceled as per preliminary amendment dated on 05/23/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debbage et al. (US Publication 2022/0085916) hereafter Debbage, in view of Gerendai et al. (US Publication 2010/0058138) hereafter Gerendai.
As per claim 1, Debbage discloses a receiver for receiving packets of messages from multiple flows multiplexed onto a connection between the receiver and a sender, wherein each packet indicates at least a flow to which the each packet belongs and a packet sequence number (PSN) (paragraphs 47, 49, 120: packet PSN with traffic connections and receiving ACK and/or NACK from the network), wherein an initial packet of each message indicates at least a total number of packets in that message (50), and wherein the receiver is configured to: receive, from the sender, a first received packet that is an initial packet of a first message of a first flow (paragraphs 120, 162: tracking packet sequence numbers and indicating toa sender of packets); discard the first received packet, if the first message cannot be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 30, 63, 112: sequence being discarded with ACK); receive, from the sender, a second received packet; and discard the second received packet under each one of the following conditions: the second received packet is of the first message (paragraphs 30,112-115); the second received packet is of a second message and belongs to the first flow (paragraphs 45, 64); the second received packet and a PSN of the second received packet is not equal to a sum of a PSN of the first received packet plus a total number of packets plus a total number of packets of any message and was discarded after discarding the first received packet (105-106, 111-112: range of packets, sending new packet with sequence NAK and can be updated and disregarded). Although, Debbage discloses a scalable protocol in received packet sequence numbers and identify a range of delivered packets, but fails to expressly disclose the second received packet is of a third message and does not belong to the first flow, and a PSN of the second received packet is not equal to a sum of a PSN of the first received packet plus a total number of packets of the first message plus a total number of packets of any message that belongs to any flow and was discarded after discarding the first received packet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerendai discloses the claimed limitation of the second received packet is of a third message and does not belong to the first flow, and a PSN of the second received packet is not equal to a sum of a PSN of the first received packet plus a total number of packets of the first message plus a total number of packets of any message that belongs to any flow and was discarded after discarding the first received packet (paragraphs 7, 25-26: second and third data packet assigned a PSN).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gerendais’ teaching with Debbage. One would be motivated to maintain multiple flow status with proper packet sequence information and send the updated information accordingly to the sender.
As per claim 2, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to: maintain flow status information indicating one or more blocked flows of the multiple flows; and discard the second received packet under a condition that the second received packet belongs to a second flow that is a blocked flow according to the flow status information (Debbage: paragraphs 30, 59-61; Gerendai: paragraphs 7, 26).
As per claim 3, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein if the first message cannot be processed by the receiver, the receiver is further configured to modify the flow status information to indicate that the first flow is a blocked flow (paragraphs 47, 112-115).
As per claim 4, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to: maintain PSN information which indicates a PSN of an expected packet, which is expected to be received next from the sender (paragraphs 30, 112-115); discard the second received packet under a first condition is not equal to the PSN information (paragraphs 47, 112-115); and not discard the second received packet under a second condition that the second received packet, which indicates that the flow is not blocked, and if the PSN of the second received packet is equal to the PSN of the expected packet as indicated by the PSN information, and if the message can be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 105-106, 111-112). Although, Debbage discloses a scalable protocol in received packet sequence numbers and identify a range of delivered packets, but fails to expressly disclose discard the second received packet under a first condition that the PSN of the second received packet is not equal to the PSN of the expected packet as indicated by the PSN information; not discard the second received packet under a second condition that the second received packet belongs to a third flow that has a status, according to the flow status information, which indicates that the third flow is not blocked, and if the PSN of the second received packet is equal to the PSN of the expected packet as indicated by the PSN information, and if the third message can be processed by the receiver.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerendai discloses the claimed limitation of a scalable protocol in received packet sequence numbers and identify a range of delivered packets, but fails to expressly disclose discard the second received packet under a first condition that the PSN of the second received packet is not equal to the PSN of the expected packet as indicated by the PSN information; not discard the second received packet under a second condition that the second received packet belongs to a third flow that has a status, according to the flow status information, which indicates that the third flow is not blocked, and if the PSN of the second received packet is equal to the PSN of the expected packet as indicated by the PSN information, and if the third message can be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 7, 25-26).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 4.
As per claim 5, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein based on determining that the first message cannot be processed by the receiver, the receiver is further configured to: increase the PSN of the expected packet by the total number of packets of the first message plus the total number of packets of any second message that belongs to the first flow and was discarded after discarding the first received packet (paragraphs 30, 48, 112-115).
As per claim 6, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein each message is associated with a message sequence number (MSN), and the receiver is further configured to: maintain MSN information which indicates an MSN of an expected message, which is expected to be processed next; and increase the MSN indicated by the MSN information by one, if the first message cannot be processed (paragraphs 26, 105-106, 109).
As per claim 7, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to increase the MSN indicated by the MSN information by one for each second message that belongs to the first flow and was discarded after discarding the first received packet (paragraphs 26, 105-106, 112-115).
As per claim 8, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to increase the MSN indicated by the MSN information by one, if the second received packet is a last packet of a message and belongs to the third flow (paragraphs 125-128).
As per claim 9, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to: send a first not acknowledge (NACK) packet to the sender, if the first message cannot be processed by the receiver; wherein the first NACK packet includes the PSN information and an indication that the first message cannot be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 49, 106, 150).
As per claim 10, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to: send a second NACK packet to the sender, and the second NACK packet includes the PSN information and an indication that the first message cannot be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 30, 59-61, 112-115). Although, Debbage discloses a scalable protocol in received packet sequence numbers and identify a range of delivered packets, but fails to expressly disclose if the second received packet is discarded and if the second received packet is of the second message or of the third message; wherein the second NACK packet includes the PSN information and an indication that the first message cannot be processed by the receiver.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerendai discloses the claimed limitation of if the second received packet is discarded and if the second received packet is of the second message or of the third message; wherein the second NACK packet includes the PSN information and an indication that the first message cannot be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 7, 25-26).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
As per claim 11, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein the first NACK packet and the second NACK packet includes the MSN of the first message that cannot be processed by the receiver (paragraphs 49, 106, 150).
As per claim 12, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein: the first NACK packet and the second NACK packet includes an MSN list comprising, for each blocked flow, the MSN of the first blocked message of the blocked flow (paragraphs 125-128); or the first NACK packet and the second NACK packet includes a PSN list comprising, for each blocked flow, the PSN of the initial packet of the first blocked message of he blocked flow (paragraphs 26, 105-106, 109; Gerendai: paragraphs 7, 26).
As per claim 13, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to: send an acknowledge; (ACK); packet to the sender, if the second received packer is not discarded (paragraphs 30, 59-61, 112-115); wherein the ACK message includes the PSN of the second received packet, the MSN of the message the second received packet belongs to, and the MSN list comprising, for each blocked flow, the MSN of the first blocked message of the blocked flow (paragraphs 30, 105-106, 111-112; Gerendai: paragraphs 7, 26).
As per claim 14, Debbage discloses the receiver further configured to: receive, from the sender, a third received packet of a fourth message; discard the third received packet in case of a predetermined failure condition and modify the flow status information of the flow to which the fourth message belongs to indicate that this flow is a blocked flow; send a third not-acknowledge (NACK) packet to sender, if the third received packet is discarded; and hold the PSN of the third received packet and/or the MSN of the fourth message (paragraphs 26, 105-106, 109; Gerendai: paragraphs 7, 25-26).
As per claim 15, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein the third NACK packet includes the PSN of the third received packet and/or the MSN of the fourth message (paragraphs 105-106, 112-115).
As per claim 16, Debbage discloses the receiver wherein the connection between the receiver and the sender is a Remote Direct Memory Access;(RDMA); connection and/or is a Reliable Datagram;(RD); connection (paragraphs 64, 204).
Claim 17 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Additionally, the limitation of receive, from the receiver, a not-acknowledge (NACK) packet that includes PSN information which indicates a PSN of an expected packet, which is expected to be received next at the receiver, and an indication that the first message cannot be processed by the receiver; abort sending any further packet of the first message; and send, to the receiver, a second sent packet that does not belong to the first flow, wherein a PSN of the second sent packet is equal to a sum of the PSN of the first sent packet plus a total number of packets of the first message plus a total number of packets of any second message that belongs to the first flow and was sent to the receiver after the first sent packet (paragraphs 7, 25-26: second and third data packet assigned a PSN).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
As per claim 18, Debbage discloses the sender wherein the NACK packet includes message sequence number (MSN) list comprising, for each blocked flow, the MSN of the first message that cannot be processed by the receiver or is discarded by the receiver, and the sender is further configured to: skip sending any first transmission of a packet that belongs to a flow, on which any message that cannot be processed by the receiver is sent (paragraphs 26, 105-106, 112-115).
As per claim 19, Debbage discloses the sender further configured to: maintain send sequence number (SSN) information which indicates an MSN of a next message to be sent; and send the second sent packet, and associate the second message with a MSN as indicated by the SSN information (paragraphs 26, 105-106, 109).
As per claim 20, Debbage discloses the sender further configured to associate the second message with the MSN of the third message, if the third message was to be sent before the second message but was skipped (paragraphs 112-115, 136).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Plamondon et al. (US Publication 2007/0206615) discloses methods for utilizing transaction boundary detection methods in queuing and retransmission decisions relating to network traffic are described. By detecting transaction boundaries and sizes, a client, server, or intermediary device may prioritize based on transaction sizes in queuing decisions, giving precedence to smaller transactions which may represent interactive and/or latency-sensitive traffic. Further, after detecting a transaction boundary, a device may retransmit one or more additional packets prompting acknowledgements, in order to ensure timely notification if the last packet of the transaction has been dropped. Systems and methods for potentially improving network latency, including retransmitting a dropped packet twice or more in order to avoid incurring additional delays due to a retransmitted packet being lost are also described.
Aggarwal et al. (2009/0175274) discloses transmission of Layer 2 (L2) traffic over a point to multi-point (P2MP) label switched path (LSP) within a multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. A source or ingress network device may implement the techniques to connect multiple L2 interfaces to a P2MP LSP within an MPLS network via a P2MP Pseudo-Wire (PW) mechanism that emulates delivery of L2 data units over a packet switched network, such as the MPLS network. The ingress network device first establishes the P2MP LSP and then connects two or more L2 interfaces to the P2MP LSP via the P2MP PW mechanism. Egress network devices may also implement the techniques to terminate the P2MP LSP and de-multiplex traffic arriving via multiple P2MP PWs carried over the same P2MP LSP.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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 L 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights