Detailed Action
This action is in response to amendments filed on 03/12/2026
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 1-24 are rejected.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Responses dated 03/12/2026, applicant amended 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15, 17-18, and 21. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 12/12/2025.
In light of applicant’s amendments/remarks, all objections of claims set forth previously are withdrawn.
Official Notice
MPEP 2144.03C states:
“If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate.
Accordingly, the examiners well-known in the art statement with respect to the claims included in the previous office action are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertions of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7-17, 19-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev et al. (US 20170187629 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Blocksome (US 20090007141 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Rahman et al. (US 20160212214 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to, (D1, abstract).
in response to a sender process selecting from a plurality of connections among at least a sender process-to-receive and a kernel space process and transmitting Message Passing Interface (MPI) communications to at least one target process, (D1, 0031, 0039, 0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages which reads on in response to a sender process selecting from a plurality of connections (e.g. plurality of paths/routes) among at least a sender process-to-receive (e.g. first path) and a kernel space process (e.g. second path) and transmitting Message Passing Interface (MPI) communications to at least one target process using one or more of the paths. The examiner notes that the specification present application does not provide limiting definition for “sender process-to-receiver” and “kernel space process” and are therefore interpreted in light of the specification as merely being first and second paths used to transmit data.).
based on selection of the sender-to-receiver process connection, transmit MPI communications using the sender process-to-receiver process connection, (D1, 0031, 0039, 0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages which reads on based on selection of the sender-to-receiver process connection/first path, transmit MPI communications using the sender process-to-receiver process connection/path.).
and based on selection of the kernel space process, transmit the MPI rendezvous communications by requesting the kernel space process to transmit the MPI rendezvous communications to a second receiver process, wherein the MPI rendezvous communications allocated, (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses client process 402a may place a transaction into a work queue entry or element (WQE) 404a, which is then processed by source channel adapter 408a from a send queue 416a in QP 410a and sent out to remote process 402b on the destination endpoint. Data in send queue 416a may be processed by transport engine 412a and sent to InfiniBand fabric 450 through port 414a of source channel adapter 408a. The data may then be received by destination channel adapter 408b through port 414b, processed by transport engine 412b, and put in receive queue 418b which reads on based on selection of the kernel space process (e.g. first or second path), transmit MPI rendezvous communications/data by requesting the kernel space process (e.g. first/second path having source channel adaptor, transport engine, port, fabric 450) to transmit MPI rendezvous communications to a second receiver process/destination, wherein the MPI rendezvous communications allocated in buffer/que of destination.).
multiple sender process share access to the kernel space process, (D1, 0031, 0038-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses that source endpoint maybe includes plurality application (e.g. multiple sender process) sharing NIC/adaptor and fabric as shown in figure to 3 to send/receive data using a best path.).
… queue pair (QP) is allocated for communications from a corresponding sender process of the multiple sender process, and… QP is allocated for transmission of the MPI rendezvous communications, (D1, 0031, 0038-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses that source endpoint maybe includes plurality application (e.g. multiple sender process) sharing NIC/adaptor and fabric as shown in figure to 3 and associated Queue pairs (QP) as shown in figure 4 to send/receive data using best path.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - based on receipt of a clear to send (CTS) message.
D2 (abstract, 0007) discloses based on receipt of a clear to send (CTS) message, transmitting rendezvous messages to a destination node.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending clear to send (CTS) message to a source from a destination node, in order to coordinate transfer of messages as known in the art and disclosed by D2.
D1 (0032) discloses InfiniBand fabric supports reliable connection, and unreliable datagram for communication; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose - a single unreliable datagram queue pair… and a reliable connection (RC) QP.
D4 (0046, 0048) discloses a single unreliable datagram queue pair… and a reliable connection (RC) QP.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending/receiving data using unreliable datagram queue pair and a reliable connection (RC) QP as disclosed by D4 and known in the art.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the plurality of connections for the sender process comprises a datagram transport for message transfers, (D1, 0031-0032 discloses InfiniBand fabric using datagram as transport service).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the kernel space process utilizes a kernel bypass datagram transport for message transfers, (D1, 0032, 0037, discloses communication is achieved through direct memory-memory transfers between applications.).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the kernel space process transmits the MPI rendezvous communications by a connection oriented transport, (D1, 0031-0032, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses for communication, InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram).).
and wherein multiple remote direct memory access (RDMA) write operations for a plurality of processes are to be multiplexed using the connection oriented transport, (D1, 0031-0032, 0039, 0101 discloses a message may be transmitted from source endpoint 302a to destination endpoint 302b using Remote Data Memory Access (RDMA)… InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram)… multiple endpoints may share an IP address, and user application data streams from multiple source endpoints sharing an IP address to multiple destination endpoints sharing an IP address can thus be multiplexed in an IP-level data stream between a pair of source and destination IP addresses).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the kernel space process load balances message transmission for the multiple sender processes over one or more connections, (D1, 0048 discloses Clos network as shown in FIG. 6 or FIG. 7 can be chosen by selecting ports of the switches or routers using a routing technique such that the traffic load can be evenly distributed between the spine or the core switches.).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein an a second sender process is to transmit MPI rendezvous communications to a third receiver by one or more of: the kernel space process, a process executing on an accelerator in a network interface device, or a process executing on a hardware accelerator in a host, (D1, figures 2-4, 0031, 0037-0042, 0054, 0101 discloses multiple nodes being able to communicate with each other including wherein an a second sender process (e.g. see figure 4 show two devices in bidirectional communication) is to transmit MPI rendezvous communications (e.g. direct memory-memory data transfer) to a third receiver by one or more of: the kernel space process (e.g. selected path), a process executing on an accelerator in a network interface device, or a process executing on a hardware accelerator in a host (e.g. NIC/adaptor).).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the sender process is to perform an application that communicates based on MPI, (D1, 0054 discloses Multipathing in InfiniBand may be achieved by assigning multiple local identifiers (LIDs) to an end point. Upper-level protocols, such as Message Passing Interface (MPI), can utilize the multiple LIDs by striping (dividing a message into several chunks) and sending out data across multiple paths (referred to as MPI multirailing)).
As per claim 9, D1 discloses,
A method comprising, (D1, abstract).
a processor performing transfers of messages for multiple sender process by, (D1, figures 3-4, 0031, 0038-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses that source endpoint maybe includes plurality application (e.g. multiple sender process) sharing NIC/adaptor and fabric as shown in figure 3 to send/receive data using a best path.).
establishing at least one connection oriented transport to at least one remote node and providing message transfers for the multiple sender processes to transmit Message Passing Interface (MPI) rendezvous messages over at least one of the at least one connection oriented transport to the at least one remote node by accessing a kernel space process, wherein the MPI rendezvous messages allocated based on… , (D1, figures 3-4, 0031, 0038-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1 includes plurality applications (e.g. sender processes), and choosing a single “best path” from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages… where for communication, InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram) to send/receive information and D1 furthermore specifically discloses client process 402a may place a transaction into a work queue entry or element (WQE) 404a, which is then processed by source channel adapter 408a from a send queue 416a in QP 410a and sent out to remote process 402b on the destination endpoint. Data in send queue 416a may be processed by transport engine 412a and sent to InfiniBand fabric 450 through port 414a of source channel adapter 408a. The data may then be received by destination channel adapter 408b through port 414b, processed by transport engine 412b, and put in receive queue 418b which reads on establishing at least one connection oriented transport (e.g. reliable connection among others) to at least one remote node and providing message transfers for the multiple sender processes to transmit Message Passing Interface (MPI) rendezvous messages/data over at least one of the at least one connection oriented transport/path to the at least one remote node by accessing a kernel space process/path, wherein the MPI rendezvous messages allocated/buffered/sent based on… ).
… queue pair (QP) is allocated for communications from a corresponding sender process of the multiple sender process, and… QP is allocated for transmission of the MPI rendezvous communications, (D1, 0031, 0038-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses that source endpoint maybe includes plurality application (e.g. multiple sender process) sharing NIC/adaptor and fabric as shown in figure to 3 and associated Queue pairs (QP) as shown in figure 4 to send/receive data using best path.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - based on receipt of at least one clear to send (CTS) message.
D2 (abstract, 0007) discloses based on receipt of at least one a clear to send (CTS) message, transmitting messages to a destination node.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending clear to send (CTS) message to a source from a destination node, in order to coordinate transfer of messages as known in the art and disclosed by D2.
D1 (0032) discloses InfiniBand fabric supports reliable connection, and unreliable datagram for communication; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose - a single unreliable datagram queue pair… and a reliable connection (RC) QP.
D4 (0046, 0048) discloses a single unreliable datagram queue pair… and a reliable connection (RC) QP.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending/receiving data using unreliable datagram queue pair and a reliable connection (RC) QP as disclosed by D4 and known in the art.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the at least one connection oriented transport is consistent with one or more of: InfiniBand, Internet Wide Area RDMA Protocol (iWARP), Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), User Datagram Protocol (UDP), quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC), RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE) v2, (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages… where for communication, InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram) to send/receive information.).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
comprising: utilizing reliable transport protocol over the at least one connection oriented transport in addition to reliable transport provided by a sender process of the multiple sender process, (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages… where for communication, InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram) to send/receive information.).
wherein the reliable transport provided by the sender process causes re-transmission of a packet based on non-receipt of the packet, (D1, 0077, 0080-0084 discloses maintaining unacknowledged packets lists, receiving NAK/SACK, and/or detecting at holes, and accordingly retrying the transmission. Furthermore, the examiner takes official notice re-transmission of data based on non-receipt/acknowledgement was notoriously well known before the effective filing of the invention. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include re-transmission of a packet based on non-receipt of the packet. This would have been obvious with predicable results of communication messages between nodes in response to dropped/missing packets.)
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein: at least one process of the multiple sender processes utilizes a datagram transport for message transfers, (D1, figure 13, 0031-0032 discloses interconnected nodes and InfiniBand fabric using datagram as transport service to transfer data between nodes).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein: at least one connection oriented transport to at least one remote node utilizes the… QP for message transfers, (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages… where for communication, InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram) to send/receive information and D1 furthermore specifically discloses as shown in figure 4, que pair (QP) for message transfer.).
D1 (0032) discloses InfiniBand fabric supports reliable connection, and unreliable datagram for communication; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose - a single unreliable datagram queue pair… and a reliable connection (RC) QP.
D4 (0046, 0048) discloses a single unreliable datagram queue pair… and a reliable connection (RC) QP.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending/receiving data using unreliable datagram queue pair and a reliable connection (RC) QP as disclosed by D4 and known in the art.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein queue resources of the at least one connection oriented transport are configured within an on-network interface device memory or cache, (D1, figure 4, 2, 13 and accompanying text, 0031-0032, 0109, 0110 discloses that the present disclosure may be implemented either in hardware such as an adaptor card, or in software that may be run on a host CPU. FIG. 13 illustrates an example of a network adapter device 1300.).
As per claims 15-17, and 19:
Claims 15-17, 19 are apparatus claims corresponding to mediums claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 15-17, 19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1-2, 4-5, 7.
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the network interface device comprises one or more of: a network interface controller (NIC), a remote direct memory access (RDMA)-enabled NIC, SmartNIC, router, switch, forwarding element, infrastructure processing unit (IPU), or data processing unit (DPU), (D1, figure 4, 2, 13 and accompanying text, 0031-0032, 0109, 0110 discloses NIC card).
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the processor and/or the sender process perform: tracking sequence numbers of transmitted MPI rendezvous messages, track acknowledgement of MPI rendezvous message receipt, and causing re-transmission of a MPI rendezvous message subject to non-receipt of acknowledgement, (D1, 0077-0084 discloses flowlets may carry flowlet index and packet sequence number and maintaining acknowledged/unacknowledged packets lists, receiving NAK/SACK, and/or detecting at holes, and accordingly retrying the transmission, which reads on track sequence numbers of transmitted MPI rendezvous messages (e.g. based on index and sequence numbers), track acknowledgement of MPI rendezvous message receipt, and cause re-transmission of a MPI rendezvous message subject to non-receipt of acknowledgement. Furthermore, the examiner takes official notice re-transmission of data based on non-receipt/acknowledgement was notoriously well known before the effective filing of the invention. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include re-transmission of a packet based on non-receipt of the packet. This would have been obvious with predicable results of communication messages between nodes in response to dropped/missing packets.)
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the MPI communications using the connection for sender process-to-receiver process comprise MPI… messages, (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses client process 402a may place a transaction into a work queue entry or element (WQE) 404a, which is then processed by source channel adapter 408a from a send queue 416a in QP 410a and sent out to remote process 402b on the destination endpoint. Data in send queue 416a may be processed by transport engine 412a and sent to InfiniBand fabric 450 through port 414a of source channel adapter 408a. The data may then be received by destination channel adapter 408b through port 414b, processed by transport engine 412b, and put in receive queue 418b which reads on the MPI communications using the connection for sender process-to-receiver process comprise MPI… messages).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - eager messages.
D2 (abstract, 0007) discloses eager messages.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending eager message as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
allocate one queue pair for reliable transport communication between the sender process and receiver process, (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen/allocated from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages… where for communication, InfiniBand supports several different classes of transport services (Reliable Connection, Unreliable Connection, Reliable Datagram, and Unreliable Datagram) to send/receive information and D1 furthermore specifically discloses as shown in figure 4, use of/allocation que pair (QP) for message transfer.).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev et al. (US 20170187629 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Blocksome (US 20090007141 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Rahman et al. (US 20160212214 A1, referred hereinafter as D4) in view of Wolfson et al. (US 20200344264 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the kernel space process is [to transmit data], (D1, 0031, 0039-0042, 0054 discloses that in system of D1, a single “best path” is usually chosen from a set of alternative paths to send/receive messages, where D1 specifically discloses client process 402a may place a transaction into a work queue entry or element (WQE) 404a, which is then processed by source channel adapter 408a from a send queue 416a in QP 410a and sent out to remote process 402b on the destination endpoint. Data in send queue 416a may be processed by transport engine 412a and sent to InfiniBand fabric 450 through port 414a of source channel adapter 408a. The data may then be received by destination channel adapter 408b through port 414b, processed by transport engine 412b, and put in receive queue 418b which reads on based on selection of the kernel space process (e.g. first or second path), wherein the kernel space process is to transmit data (e.g. via first/second path having source channel adaptor, transport engine, port, fabric 450).).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - to access kernel level features.
D3 (0038) discloses known methods/system/containers to access kernel level features.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of allowing containers/modules/programs to access kernel level features/services as disclosed by D3 (figure 3, 0038) and known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev et al. (US 20170187629 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Blocksome (US 20090007141 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Rahman et al. (US 20160212214 A1, referred hereinafter as D4) in view of Palanisamy et al. (US 20200186974 A1, referred hereinafter as D5).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein selection from the plurality of connections to at least one target process is based on… : available memory for message queues, speed of message traversal to a destination, latency of message traversal to the destination, or message size, (D1, 0042, 0049-0050, 0078 discloses selecting best path until its congested and each flowlet may be controlled to have a limited number of outstanding transmit packets. Therefore, slower paths will be used less frequently than faster paths when choosing a flowlet. A flowlet can be either in active state (i.e., having outstanding unacknowledged packets) or idle state (everything is acknowledged.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [selection based on] two or more [parameters]
However D5 (0122) discloses known ways for selecting communication path based on two or more parameters including message length/size, message rate, quality, importance etc.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending/receiving data using a selected path based on certain parameters as disclosed by D5.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev et al. (US 20170187629 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Blocksome (US 20090007141 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Rahman et al. (US 20160212214 A1, referred hereinafter as D4) in view of Palanisamy et al. (US 20200186974 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Wndelrup (US 20120110626 A1, referred hereinafter as D6).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein selection from the plurality of connections to at least one target process is based on: … speed of message traversal to a destination, latency of message traversal to the destination… , (D1, 0042, 0049-0050, 0078 discloses selecting best path until its congested and each flowlet may be controlled to have a limited number of outstanding transmit packets. Therefore, slower paths will be used less frequently than faster paths when choosing a flowlet. A flowlet can be either in active state (i.e., having outstanding unacknowledged packets) or idle state (everything is acknowledged.), where “congested” path takes into account speed and latency.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [selection based on] and message size
However D5 (0122) discloses known ways for selecting communication path based on various parameters including message length/size, message rate, quality, importance etc which reads on available memory for message queues, speed of message traversal to a destination, latency of message traversal to the destination, and message size
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending/receiving data using a selected path based on certain parameters as disclosed by D5.
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [based on] available memory for message queues.
However, D6 (0046) discloses known ways sending/transmitting data based on available memory for message queues/size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D6 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending/transmitting data based on determined available memory as disclosed by D6 (0046).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/12/3026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds/rational of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights