DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 02/03/26, for application number 17/076,776 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berchanskiy et al., US 2019/0155361 A1, in view of Wagh et al., US 2014/0281639 A1, and further in view of Creedon et al., US 5,987,507 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Berchanskiy discloses an apparatus [computing device 101, Fig. 1] comprising:
an I/O controller [controller 112 which executes the first power controller 111 and second power controller 113, which in turn control the operations of first lane 122 and second lane 124, par 32, ll. 25-28] comprising:
a second port to support a link to couple the I/O controller to another device [port 1 125 contained in I/O interface 127 which connects to port 2 135 of computing device 103] over the link, wherein the I/O controller is to facilitate access to the network by the other device [at the first time instance, the first lane 122 is to operate in the first power state 121 to receive or to transmit a traffic load 117. At the second time instance, the second lane 122 is to operate in the second power state 123 to receive or to transmit a traffic load 118, par 32, ll. 13-18]; and
circuitry [controller 112 executing the first power controller 111 and second power controller 113] to:
monitor a buffer to determine an amount of network traffic on the first port [first power controller 111 or second power controller 113 may control the power state 121 or power state 123 based on characteristics of the traffic loads; scheduler 115 scheduling the total traffic load 116 (power controllers monitoring the traffic loads, par 37, ll. 1-4, 8-14]; and
a plurality of different power management transitions to be applied to the port [at the first time instance, the first lane 122 is to operate in the first power state 121 to receive or to transmit a traffic load 117. At the second time instance, the second lane 122 is to operate in the second power state 123 to receive or to transmit a traffic load 118, par 32, ll. 13-18].
However, Berchanskiy does not explicitly teach an I/O controller comprising: a first port to couple to a network; a buffer of the first port to buffer network data to be received or sent on the network via the first port; select, based on the amount of network traffic determined from the buffer, one of a plurality of different power management transitions to be applied at the second port for the link; and initiate, at the second port, the selected power management transition; and performing one of a plurality of different latency mitigations at the first port based on an amount of transition latency associated with the selected power management transition.
In the analogous art of network interface power management, Wagh teaches performing one of a plurality of different latency mitigations at a port based on an amount of transition latency associated with the selected power management transition [when the device is triggered to transition, the delay value is read and access to the device is delayed for the specified delay value (mitigating latency associated with the power management transition), par 31, ll. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Berchanskiy and Wagh before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the latency mitigation as taught by Wagh, into the apparatus as disclosed by Berchanskiy, to provide shorter resume times for devices and provide a rich user experience [Wagh, par 33].
However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach an I/O controller comprising: a first port to couple to a network; a buffer of the first port to buffer network data to be received or sent on the network via the first port; selecting, based on the amount of network traffic determined from the buffer, one of a plurality of different power management transitions to be applied at the second port for the link; and initiating, at the second port, the selected power management transition.
In the analogous art of data transmission and reception, Creedon teaches an I/O controller comprising: a first port to couple to a network; a buffer of the first port to buffer network data to be received or sent on the network via the first port [a network device such as that in FIG. 1 which has a multiplicity of input ports and a common buffer memory, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 40-43]; selecting, based on the amount of network traffic determined from the buffer, a power management transition to be applied at the second port for the link; and initiating, at the second port, the selected power management transition [a subroutine is depicted at 201 for monitoring the occupation of the common memory to determine the exceeding of a threshold which indicates congestion in the memory. If a threshold test is exceeded at 202, then, in response to such indication, a respective counter associated with each affected input port is enabled at 203, Fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 45-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the network management as taught by Creedon, into the apparatus as disclosed by Berchanskiy and Wagh, to avoid data packet loss during congestion [Creedon, col. 1, ll. 49-56].
Regarding Claim 2, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the power management transition comprises changing a link width of the link by activating or deactivating a subset of lanes associated with the link based on the amount of network traffic [each lane has its own associated thresholds, and may be turned off or placed into low power mode or activated based on the thresholds, placing the communication port into a respective one of a plurality of different power management modes (which changes the link width, as the number of active lanes changes based on the traffic loads), par 47, ll. 10-30; par 48].
Regarding Claim 4, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 2. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein changing a link width of the link comprises a transition of the link from an active link state to a configuration state, communication of training sequences in the configuration state to negotiate the transition of the link from a first link width to a different, second link width [watermarks representing 25%, 50% and 75% of bandwidth being training sequences which are implemented by scheduler 115 during the configuration state (transitioning the link width) to place the corresponding lanes into a lower power state (i.e. transitioning from a first link width to a second link width), par 49, ll. 1-6, 19-29].
Regarding Claim 5, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 2. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein changing a link width of the link comprises a transition of the link from an active link state to a partial width link state, and the partial width link state is defined in a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe)-based state machine [communication port 325 is a PCIe port, with the number of active lanes (link width) adjusted based on the traffic meeting a threshold level; watermarks representing 25%, 50% and 75% of bandwidth being training sequences which are implemented by scheduler 115 during the configuration state (transitioning the link width) to place the corresponding lanes into a lower power state (i.e. transitioning from a first link width to a second link width), par 49, ll. 1-6, 19-29].
Regarding Claim 7, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the power manager is further to determine that the amount of network traffic meets a threshold, and the power management transition on the link is based on the determination that the amount of network traffic meets the threshold [turning off communication lanes when the amount of traffic falls below a threshold, par 47, ll. 18-21].
Regarding Claim 8, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 7. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the threshold comprises a particular one of a plurality of thresholds, and a respective one of a plurality of different power management transitions is to be performed in association with each one of the plurality of thresholds [each lane has its own associated thresholds, and may be turned off or placed into low power mode or activated based on the thresholds, placing the communication port into a respective one of a plurality of different power management modes (transitions), par 47, ll. 10-30; par 48].
Regarding Claim 9, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Wagh further discloses wherein the latency mitigation performed comprises sending a number of pause frames on the port corresponding to the amount of transition latency to quiesce network traffic on the port [when the device is triggered to transition, the delay value is read and access to the device is delayed for the specified delay value (mitigating latency associated with the power management transition, with the delays being equivalent to pause frames), par 31, ll. 1-5].
Regarding Claim 11, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the plurality of power management transitions are associated with a plurality of threshold amounts of network traffic on the port [each lane has its own associated thresholds, and may be turned off or placed into low power mode or activated based on the thresholds, placing the communication port into a respective one of a plurality of different power management modes (transitions); thresholds associated with traffic loads, par 47, ll. 10-30; par 48; par 37, ll. 14-18].
Regarding Claim 12, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the link is based on a PCIe protocol, and the power management transition is to be performed based on the PCIe protocol [communication port is compliant with PCI protocol; power states are of PCI compliant protocols, par 16, ll. 4-6; par 43, ll. 1-3].
Regarding Claim 13, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 12. However, while Creedon discloses a first port and network data comprising packet data [col. 2, ll. 36-50], the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the first port comprises an Ethernet port and the network data comprises Ethernet packet data.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, the ports being Ethernet ports and packet data being Ethernet packet data appears to simply be a design choice, and performs the same network data function regardless.
Regarding Claim 14, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Berchanskiy further discloses the other device comprises a host processor, and the I/O controller is to handle network traffic for the host processor [port 1 125 of I/O interface 127 is connected to port 2 135 of computing device 103, which necessarily contains a processor, Fig. 1]. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the I/O controller comprises a network interface controller (NIC).
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, the I/O controller comprising a network interface controller (NIC) appears to simply be a design choice, and performs the same function of I/O control regardless.
Regarding Claim 15, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 7. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the amount of network traffic is determined to meet the threshold based on the amount of traffic being above or below the threshold for a threshold amount of time [if the traffic load is below a capacity for a certain amount of time, the lane may be placed into a low power mode, par 47, ll. 10-18].
Regarding Claim 16, Berchanskiy discloses a method [using computing device 101, Fig. 1] comprising:
monitoring a buffer of a network adapter device to determine an amount of network traffic at the network adapter [first power controller 111 or second power controller 113 may control the power state 121 or power state 123 based on characteristics of the traffic loads; scheduler 115 scheduling the total traffic load 116 (power controllers monitoring the traffic loads), par 37, ll. 1-4, 8-14], wherein the network adapted comprises a port to couple to a network and an interface to couple to another device over a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) link [communication port is compliant with PCI protocol; computing device 101 coupled to computing device 103, par 16, ll. 4-6], wherein the network adapter device provides the other device with access to the network [I/O interface 127 provides connection between computing device 101 and computing device 103, Fig. 1; par 31, ll. 7-12];
determining that the amount of network traffic meets a threshold [turning off communication lanes when the amount of traffic falls below a threshold, par 47, ll. 18-21]; and
initiating a change to the PCIe link to adjust power usage at the PCIe link based on the threshold, and the change comprises at least one of a change to a data rate of the PCIe link or a change to a PCIe link width of the link [each lane has its own associated thresholds, and may be turned off or placed into low power mode or activated based on the thresholds, placing the communication port into a respective one of a plurality of different power management modes (which changes the link width, as the number of active lanes changes based on the traffic loads), par 47, ll. 10-30; par 48].
Creedon further teaches the buffer comprises a buffer of the first port[a network device Such as that in FIG. 1 which has a multiplicity of input ports and a common buffer memory, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 40-43].
The remainder of Claim 16 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 17, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the method of Claim 16. Claim 17 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 15, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 18, Berchanskiy discloses a system [computing device 101 connected to computing device 103, Fig. 1] comprising:
a first device [computing device 101]; and
an I/O controller device coupled to the first device by a link compliant with a PCIe-based interconnect protocol [controller 112 which executes the first power controller 111 and second power controller 113, which in turn control the operations of first lane 122 and second lane 124; communication port is compliant with PCI protocol, par 32, ll. 25-28; par 16, ll. 4-6].
The remainder of Claim 18 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 19, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the system of Claim 18. Claim 19 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 14, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the system of Claim 19. Berchanskiy further discloses wherein the first device comprises a host processor [computing device 101 includes processors, par 39, ll. 17-22].
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon, and further in view of Gupta et al., US 20170270060 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 2. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the power management transition comprises both changing the link width and changing a data rate of the link.
In the analogous art of communications link power management, Gupta teaches wherein the power management transition comprises both changing the link width and changing a data rate of the link [applying an action to optimize power consumption (i.e. power management transition) of a link includes modifying the width and/or speed of the links, par 55, ll. 4-11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Berchanskiy, Wagh, Creedon, and Gupta before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the changing of link width and data rate as taught by Gupta, into the apparatus as disclosed by Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon, to reduce power consumption through optimization [Gupta, par 3, 55].
Regarding Claim 6, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. However, while Berchanskiy discloses performing a power management transition based on the amount of network traffic exceeding or falling below a threshold [each lane has its own associated thresholds, and may be turned off or placed into low power mode or activated based on the thresholds, placing the communication port into a respective one of a plurality of different power management modes (transitions), par 47, ll. 10-30; par 48], the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the power management transition comprises changing a data rate of the link from a first speed to a second speed based on the threshold.
In the analogous art of communications link power management, Gupta teaches wherein the power management transition comprises changing a data rate of the link from a first speed to a second speed based on the threshold [applying an action to optimize power consumption (i.e. power management transition) of a link includes modifying the width and/or speed of the links, par 55, ll. 4-11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Berchanskiy, Wagh, Creedon, and Gupta before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the changing of link width and data rate as taught by Gupta, into the apparatus as disclosed by Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon, to reduce power consumption through optimization [Gupta, par 3, 55].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon, and further in view of Wang et al., US 2016/0187958 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. However, while Wagh teaches mitigating latency while the power management transition is performed, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the port comprises a first one of a plurality of ports of the I/O controller to couple to the network, wherein the latency mitigation performed comprises rerouting network traffic over a second one of the plurality of ports.
In the analogous art of network device power management, Wang teaches wherein the port comprises a first one of a plurality of ports of the I/O controller to couple to the network, wherein the latency mitigation performed comprises rerouting network traffic over a second one of the plurality of ports [switching circuit may direct the flow of packets based on information received, such as if one ports of a plurality of ports is overutilized or experiencing heavy traffic, and will lower the traffic (i.e. latency) by sending packets to a different port, par 22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Berchanskiy, Wagh, Creedon, and Wang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the rerouting of traffic as taught by Wang, into the apparatus as disclosed by Berchanskiy, Wagh, and Creedon, to optimize performance of a network device [Wang, par 2].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as Berchanskiy neither teaches a first port nor a buffer associated with traffic, it thus cannot teach an I/O controller that is to facilitate access to a network by another device and monitor a buffer to determine an amount of network traffic on a first port [Remarks, 3]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial point of clarification, Examiner notes the Office Action does not contradict any assertions made regarding the disclosures of Berchanskiy as argued by Applicant [Remarks, 3], but instead, simply states that what is disclosed by Berchanskiy regarding an I/O controller is a subset of the entire limitation regarding the I/O controller, which includes the first and second ports.
With regards to Applicant’s argument as to accessing a network by another device, Examiner notes Berchanskiy discloses two separate devices connected via communication ports and associated lanes of traffic. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, computing device 101 and computing device 103 are in a network, and access between the two is provide via I/O interface 127. While the claim does provide “a first port to couple to a network,” there does not appear to be any restrictions on the second port recited to also couple to a network in addition to “facilitat[ing] access to the network by the other device.” Further, the rejection does not rely upon Berchanskiy to disclose both the first and second ports, as illustrated by the combination of references.
As to the argument regarding monitoring of a buffer of data, Examiner notes the rejection illustrates power controllers monitoring traffic loads, which are interpreted as equivalent to buffers for the traffic.
Additional arguments against Berchanskiy appear to be addressing the reference individually. Examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, the features of multiple ports, for instance, is not disclosed by Berchanskiy alone, but rather, the combination of references.
No additional arguments were made as to the remaining limitations and claims, and as such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Kim Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4147. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175