Details
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claims 1-3 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: - a combination part which combines,- a transmission part which transmits,- a distribution part which distributes,- a reception part which acquires in claims 1 and 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALLE et al (Pub. No.: US 2022/0321491 A1) in view of Kamath et al (Pub. No.: US 2019/0155645 A1).
As per claim 1, BALLE discloses a communication device (BALLE, Fig 9 item 900, Fig 11), comprising: - a combination part which combines a plurality of pieces of transmission data (BALLE, Fig 9, paragraph 0047, wherein “Receive Segment Coalescing (RSC) can be performed by network interface 900 whereby portions of incoming packets are combined into segments of a packet”; thus the component performing the combining of portions of incoming packet can be the combination part as claimed); - a transmission part which transmits an internal signal based on the plurality of pieces of combined transmission data for each interrupt processing or polling processing (BALLE, Fig 9, paragraph 0047, wherein “Interrupt coalesce 922 can perform interrupt moderation whereby network interface interrupt coalesce 922 waits for multiple packets to arrive, or for a time-out to expire, before generating an interrupt to host system to process received packet(s)”; wherein the generated interrupt can be the internal signal as claimed); and - a distribution part which distributes an external signal based on the transmitted internal signal to (BALLE, Fig 9, paragraph 0046, wherein “Packet allocator 924 can provide distribution of received packets for processing by multiple CPUs or cores using receive side scaling (RSS). When packet allocator 924 uses RSS, packet allocator 924 can calculate a hash or make another determination based on contents of a received packet to determine which CPU or core is to process a packet”). BALLE shows having a plurality of transmission ports (see Fig 9, 11) but BALLE does not explicitly disclose that the distribution part distributes to a plurality of transmission ports. To make the record clear, the examiner introduces BROWNE to disclose that the distribution part distributes to a plurality of transmission ports (BROWNE, Fig 4, paragraph 0031-0032, wherein “FIG. 4 depicts an example system. The system of FIG. 4 can allocate contents (e.g., processed received packets) associated with input timeslot queues and processed by cores to specific output timeslot queues and specific output ports. One or more cores can execute or use timeslot scheduler 402 to determine an output timeslot queue and an output port for processed received packets”) configured to
Therefore, it would have it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate BALLE with BROWNE to achieve the claimed limitations because it will allow to improve the performance of the system by balancing the load of packet processing among cores and ports (see BROWNE paragraph 0002).
As per claim 1, BALLE discloses a communication device (BALLE, Fig 9 item 900, Fig 11), comprising: - a combination part which combines a plurality of external signals input (BALLE, Fig 9, paragraph 0047, wherein “Receive Segment Coalescing (RSC) can be performed by network interface 900 whereby portions of incoming packets are combined into segments of a packet”; thus the component performing the combining of portions of incoming packet can be the combination part as claimed); - a reception part which acquires an internal signal based on the plurality of combined external signals for each interrupt processing or polling processing (BALLE, Fig 9, paragraph 0047, wherein “Interrupt coalesce 922 can perform interrupt moderation whereby network interface interrupt coalesce 922 waits for multiple packets to arrive, or for a time-out to expire, before generating an interrupt to host system to process received packet(s)”; wherein the generated interrupt can be the internal signal as claimed); and - a distribution part which distributes a piece of reception data based on the acquired internal signal to a plurality of data processing parts (BALLE, Fig 9, paragraph 0046, wherein “Packet allocator 924 can provide distribution of received packets for processing by multiple CPUs or cores using receive side scaling (RSS). When packet allocator 924 uses RSS, packet allocator 924 can calculate a hash or make another determination based on contents of a received packet to determine which CPU or core is to process a packet”). BALLE shows having a plurality of transmission ports (see Fig 9, 11) but BALLE does not explicitly disclose a plurality of reception ports. To make the record clear, the examiner introduces BROWNE to disclose a plurality of reception ports (BROWNE, Fig 4, paragraph 0031-0032, wherein “FIG. 4 depicts an example system. The system of FIG. 4 can allocate contents (e.g., processed received packets) associated with input timeslot queues and processed by cores to specific output timeslot queues and specific output ports. One or more cores can execute or use timeslot scheduler 402 to determine an output timeslot queue and an output port for processed received packets”) configured to
Therefore, it would have it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate BALLE with BROWNE to achieve the claimed limitations because it will allow to improve the performance of the system by balancing the load of packet processing among cores and ports (see BROWNE paragraph 0002).
Claim 3 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7212. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 3:30 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on ario.etienne@uspto.gov. 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.
/HAMZA N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights