DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in this application. Applicant's amendments to the claims and abstract have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 8/7/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new reference Meyer et al. (US 2020/0236009, hereinafter Meyer).
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindhu et al. (US 2019/0013965, hereinafter Sindhu) in view of Bahl et al. (US 11,570,271, hereinafter Bahl), and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2020/0236009, hereinafter Meyer).
Regarding claim 1, Sindhu discloses a system (an example system 8 – Sindhu ¶0030) comprising:
a network interface device (each access node 17 may be viewed as a network interface subsystem – Sindhu ¶0036) comprising:
a device interface [Sindhu FIG. 12 teaches PCIe Complex 400];
a direct memory access (DMA) circuitry [Sindhu FIG. 12 teaches DMA 398];
a network interface (each access node 17 may be viewed as a network interface subsystem – Sindhu ¶0036); and
circuitry to perform an operation to manage communications for a microservice to one or more other microservices and manage communications to the microservice from the one or more other microservices (data center 10 provides an operating environment for applications and services for customers 11 – Sindhu ¶0030; Applicant’s Specification [0014] equates a microservice to an application), wherein performing the operation is offloaded to the network interface device from a host that executes the microservice (each access node 17 may be viewed as a network interface subsystem that implements full offload of the handling of data packets… and storage acceleration for the attached server systems – Sindhu ¶0036).
Sindhu does not disclose performing operations of a microservice sidecar to manage communications for a microservice, wherein the offloading is for the network interface device to perform the microservice sidecar, wherein the microservice sidecar is to provide a proxy for microservice to microservice communications. Bahl, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches performing operations of a microservice sidecar to manage communications for a microservice, wherein the offloading is for the network interface device to perform the microservice sidecar, wherein the microservice sidecar is to provide a proxy for microservice to microservice communications (microservice instances may communicate with each other through a service mesh… requests between the microservice instances may be routed through proxies, also referred to as sidecars – Bahl Col 2 Ln 38-41). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sindhu to comprise the sidecar limitation as claimed, in order to spread a load from a microservice instance to appropriate downstream containers that may serve the request (Bahl Col 2 Ln 44-46).
Sindhu and Bahl do not teach wherein the microservice sidecar is to schedule communications transmission to the one or more other microservices. Meyer, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the microservice sidecar is to schedule communications transmission to the one or more other microservices (the communication microservices may function as batch schedulers or arbiters for incoming requests such that peripheral processing application 601-1… 601-n may process incoming data without collisions – Meyer ¶0100). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Sindhu and Bahl to comprise the scheduling limitation as claimed, in order to provide seamless access between users and applications by avoiding colliding requests (Meyer ¶0082).
Regarding claim 2, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the network interface device comprises one or more of: an infrastructure processing unit (IPU), data processing unit (DPU) (access nodes 17 may also be referred to as data processing units (DPUs), or devices including DPUs – Sindhu ¶0037), smartNIC, network interface controller, or network-attached appliance (access nodes 17 are configurable to operate in a standalone network appliance having one or more access nodes – Sindhu ¶0038) [the elements are listed in the alternative (“one or more of”), so the prior art only needs to teach one of the listed alternatives to address the invention, where at least a DPU and a network-attached appliance are taught].
Regarding claim 3, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein to manage communications for the microservice to one or more other microservices and manage communications to the microservice from the one or more other microservices, the network interface device is to perform a control plane (a control plane protocol executed by access nodes 17 may be used – Sindhu ¶0114) and a data plane for the communications (destination switching components of access nodes 17 may provide a limited lookup necessary only to select the proper output port for forwarding packets to local servers 12 – Sindhu ¶0052; forwarding operations are an example of data plane operations – see claim 4 below).
Regarding claim 4, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the control plane is to configure the data plane to perform forwarding operations of a communication from the microservice to a destination microservice among the one or more other microservices (data center 10 includes a set of storage systems and application servers 12 interconnected via a high-speed switch fabric 14 – Sindhu ¶0032; an access node 17 sourcing a packet flow for a source server 12 – Sindhu ¶0049; destination switching components of access nodes 17 may provide a limited lookup necessary only to select the proper output port for forwarding packets to local servers 12 – Sindhu ¶0052; forwarding packets from a source application server 12 to another application server 12 reads on the limitation as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the destination microservice is executed by the host that executes the microservice or executed by a different host [the application running on the destination local server 12 receiving the forwarded packets reads on this limitation, because the local server 12 is “a different host”].
Regarding claim 6, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the data plane is to perform three or more of: identification of a device that executes a destination microservice (service discovery module 406 may register identifying information… for microservices 108 to facilitate their discovery and use such information to identify other microservices – Bahl Col 6 Ln 20-24), communication duplication (the virtual processor then moves the data into buffer memory for processing by a transport virtual processor… followed by transmit TCP processing, which stores a copy of the data in external memory, in case retransmission is later needed – Sindhu ¶0193), rate limiting (each access node 17 limits the incoming data rate to the FCP fabric – Sindhu ¶0113), or access control list (a controller may provide access control policies… for the sidecars – Bahl Col 2 Ln 46-48; hardware offload modules of access node 150… implement ACL – Sindhu ¶0122).
The reasons to combine the references remain the same as that for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the network interface device comprises a system on chip (SoC) and processor (an example access node 150 including two or more processing clusters… 150 generally represents a hardware chip implemented in digital logic circuitry – Sindhu ¶0119; 150 includes networking unit 152… processing clusters 156 – Sindhu ¶0120) and wherein the SoC is to execute the control plane (processing clusters 156… networking unit 152… are interconnected using two or three main network-on-chip (NoC) fabrics – Sindhu ¶0144) and the processor is to execute the data plane (152 may also use processing cores – Sindhu ¶0142).
Regarding claim 8, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the processor comprises one or more of: application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (ASICs – Sindhu ¶0204), field programmable gate array (FPGA) (FPGAs – Sindhu ¶0204), or programmable match-action units [the elements are listed in the alternative (“one or more of”), so the prior art only needs to teach one of the listed alternatives to address the invention, where at least an ASIC and a FPGA are taught].
Regarding claim 9, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach comprising the host that executes the microservice (data center 10 includes a set of storage systems and application servers 12 interconnected via a high-speed switch fabric 14 – Sindhu ¶0032), wherein the host is communicatively coupled to the network interface device (each of servers 12 is coupled to switch fabric 14 by an access node 17 – Sindhu ¶0036).
Regarding claim 10, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach comprising a datacenter that includes the host and a second host (in one example implementation, access nodes 17 within access node group 19 connected to servers 52 and solid state storage 41 using… (PCIe) links 48, 50, and connect to other access nodes and the datacenter switch fabric 14 using Ethernet links 42, 44, 46 – Sindhu ¶0059), wherein the network interface device is to provide the communication to the second host based on a destination microservice, among the one or more other microservices, executing on the second host (destination switching components of access nodes 17 may provide a limited lookup necessary only to select the proper output port for forwarding packets to local servers 12 – Sindhu ¶0052; the application running on the destination local server 12 receiving the forwarded packets reads on this limitation, because the local server 12 is “the second host”).
Regarding claim 11, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach wherein the microservice is to cause data to be copied to the network interface device (processing cluster 156 may further include… and copy, among other tasks – Sindhu ¶0141) and the network interface device is to execute the sidecar to generate at least one packet with the data and transmit the at least one packet to another network interface device associated with a target microservice, among the one or more other microservices (data center 10 includes a set of storage systems and application servers 12 interconnected via a high-speed switch fabric 14 – Sindhu ¶0032; an access node 17 sourcing a packet flow for a source server 12 – Sindhu ¶0049; destination switching components of access nodes 17 may provide a limited lookup necessary only to select the proper output port for forwarding packets to local servers 12 – Sindhu ¶0052; Sindhu FIG. 1 shows communication between different access nodes, which reads on the network interface device generating and transmitting a packet to another network interface device as claimed).
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 3, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 6, but requires all four list items; as Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach all four items, the claim is rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 4, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 7, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claims 2 and 3, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 2, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 2, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 4 and 6, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 4, 6, and 7, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Sindhu, Bahl, and Meyer teach instructions to configure the DPU to perform communication forwarding operations for a second microservice executed by a second host different than the host (data center 10 includes a set of storage systems and application servers 12 interconnected via a high-speed switch fabric 14 – Sindhu ¶0032; an access node 17 sourcing a packet flow for a source server 12 – Sindhu ¶0049; destination switching components of access nodes 17 may provide a limited lookup necessary only to select the proper output port for forwarding packets to local servers 12 – Sindhu ¶0052; forwarding packets from a source application server 12 to another application server 12 reads on the limitation as claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON Y TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM MST, with every other Friday off.
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, WING CHAN can be reached on 571-272-7493. 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.
/LEON Y TSENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2441
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights