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 .
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiruvolu et al. (US 2005/0100011), hereinafter referred to as Chiruvolu in view of Hazelet et al. (US 9,548,937), hereinafter referred to as Hazelet and Nadas et al. (US 10,367,739), hereinafter referred to as Nadas.
Referring to claim 1, Chiruvolu, teaches, as claimed, a packet processing method applied to a data processing unit, DPU, wherein the method comprises: storing a received network packet in a buffer unit (i.e.-receiving packets and storing the packets in ingress queue, page 1, ¶7, lines 1-2; ¶8, lines 1-2; and page 2, ¶18, lines 9-12), wherein the network packet comprises a first packet and a second packet (i.e.- modified packet and received packet, page 2, ¶21, lines 6 and 10) the first packet is used to be processed in a first transmission path (i.e.-modified packet is processed using egress port, page 2, ¶22, lines 1-3), the second packet is used to be processed in a second transmission path (i.e.-received packets are processed using the ingress port, page 2, ¶21, lines 6-8), and a packet processing speed of the second transmission path is higher than a packet processing speed of the first transmission path (i.e.-the ingress port having high output which causes data packet congestion on the egress port, page 2, ¶24, lines 4-7 and 12-15).
However, Chiruvolu does not teach monitoring a buffer watermark of a packet buffer space of the buffer unit, wherein the buffer watermark is used to indicate a usage degree of the packet buffer space; and in response to the buffer watermark being greater than a preset threshold, sending the first packet in the buffer unit to the first transmission path.
On the other hand, Hazelet discloses method and system for controlling data transmission by monitoring a buffer watermark of a packet buffer space of the buffer unit (i.e.-monitoring current fill level of FIFO buffer, col. 1, lines 47-50; and col. 3, lines 25-28) to indicate a usage degree of the packet buffer space. Furthermore, Nadas disclsoes a method and system for detecting data path congestion and redirecting the flow of data packets into first/second/alternate path (see figs. 3&4; col. 2, lines 14-18 & 47-52; and col. 4, lines 51-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chiruvolu and incorporate the steps of: monitoring a buffer watermark of a packet buffer space of the buffer unit, wherein the buffer watermark is used to indicate a usage degree of the packet buffer space; and in response to the buffer watermark being greater than a preset threshold, sending the first packet in the buffer unit to the first transmission path, as taught by Hazelet and Nadas. The motivation for doing so would have been to control data packet transmission based on level of the FIFO buffer, thereby avoiding packet loss due to buffer overfill; and utilize available/alternative data paths to avoid congestion.
As to claim 2, the modified Chiruvolu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: in response to the buffer watermark being less than or equal to the preset threshold (see Hazelet, col. 5, lines 33-36), sending the first packet in the buffer unit to the first transmission path (see Hazelet, col. 5, lines 52-55) and/or sending the second packet in the buffer unit to the second transmission path (see Nadas, col. 4, lines 51-61).
As to claim 4, the modified Chiruvolu in view of Hazelet innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein after sending the first packet in the buffer unit to the first transmission path, the method further comprises: updating the buffer watermark of the packet buffer space of the buffer unit (see Hazelet, col. 9, lines 11-13).
As to claim 5, the modified Chiruvolu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein before storing the received network packet in the buffer unit, the method further comprises: obtaining packet header information of a current network packet to be stored in the buffer unit (see Chiruvolu, page 2, ¶19, lines 1-4); and identifying, according to the packet header information, that the current network packet is the first packet or the second packet (see Chiruvolu, page 2, ¶18, lines 9-12).
As to claim 8, the modified Chiruvolu in view of Nadas teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first transmission path is a slow path (i.e.-high congestion); and the second transmission path is a fast path (i.e.-lower congestion) (see Nadas, col. 4, lines 51-54).
Referring to claims 9, 10 and 12, the claims are substantially the same as claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, hence the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 is applied accordingly.
Referring to claims 13, 14, 16, 17 and 20, the claims are substantially the same as claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, hence the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 is applied accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marshall (US 2010/0098104), Bubb et al. (US 10,303,627), KN et al. (US 11,394,663), Hart et al. (US 2006/0164989), Madsen et al. (US 2009/0103434), Ouellette et al. (US 7,359,324) and Gavand et al. (US 11,956,142) do teach method and system for selective packet processing and flow control along alternative paths for load balancing.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights