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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04(II). "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “to provide power to the at least one accelerator” appears to have been duplicated in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0169677 to Madhusoodanan (“Madhusoodanan”).
In reference to Claim 17, Madhusoodanan discloses a method comprising: in a network interface device (See Figure 1 Number 100, Figure 2 Number 200, and Paragraphs 12 and 20): performing a received command in one or more packets (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26) while at least one compute device (See Figures 1 and 2 Numbers 130 and 140 and Paragraphs 12 and 20) controlled by the network interface device is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one compute device that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 33, and 35-36), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device (See Paragraphs 37-39), based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, providing the inventory of the compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the computer devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption, and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 36).
It is noted that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition (underlined limitations in the above rejection indicate the condition, and italicized limitations indicate the limitation contingent upon that condition). As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations.
In reference to Claim 18, Madhusoodanan discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 35, and 41).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0286347 to Kanigicherla et al. (“Kanigicherla”).
In reference to Claim 17, Kanigicherla discloses a method comprising: in a network interface device (See Figure 2 Number 100 and Paragraph 22): performing a received command in one or more packets (See Paragraph 42) while at least one compute device (See Figure 2 Numbers 104-1 – 104-2 and Paragraphs 22-23 and 28) controlled by the network interface device is in a reduced power state (See Paragraph 42), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one compute device that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraph 42), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraphs 21 and 42), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device, based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, providing the inventory of the compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the computer devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption, and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraphs 21 and 42).
It is noted that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition (underlined limitations in the above rejection indicate the condition, and italicized limitations indicate the limitation contingent upon that condition). As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations.
In reference to Claim 18, Kanigicherla discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Kanigicherla further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 42).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0297087 to Fleming (“Fleming”).
In reference to Claim 17, Fleming discloses a method comprising: in a network interface device (See Figure 1 Number 100 and Paragraph 18): performing a received command in one or more packets (See Paragraphs 13, 17, 39-41, 50, and 57) while at least one compute device controlled by the network interface device (See Figure 1 Numbers 110, 112, 114, and 122 and Paragraphs 17, 24, and 26) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 13, 17, 39-41, 50, and 57), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one compute device that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 13, 17, 39-41, 50, and 57), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraphs 21-22 and 37-42), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device, based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, providing the inventory of the compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the computer devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption, and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraphs 21-22 and 37-42).
It is noted that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition (underlined limitations in the above rejection indicate the condition, and italicized limitations indicate the limitation contingent upon that condition). As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations.
In reference to Claim 18, Fleming discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Fleming further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraphs 13 and 59).
In reference to Claim 19, Fleming discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Fleming further discloses that the command is to request capabilities of the at least one compute device (See Paragraphs 10-11, 17, 42, and 60), wherein the capabilities comprise one or more of: a processor type, processor clock frequency, device power utilization, device power cap, or storage capacity, and wherein the processor type comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU), central processing unit (CPU), or accelerator (See Paragraphs 10 and 29).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0334206 to Hung (“Hung”).
In reference to Claim 17, Hung discloses a method comprising: in a network interface device (See Figure 3A Number 300, and Paragraph 43): performing a received command in one or more packets (See Paragraphs 40 and 43-48) while at least one compute device controlled by the network interface device (See Figure 3A Numbers 140, 240, and 250 and Paragraph 39) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 40 and 43-48), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one compute device that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 40 and 43-48), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraph 6), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device (See Paragraph 7), based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, providing the inventory of the compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the computer devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption, and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 6).
It is noted that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition (underlined limitations in the above rejection indicate the condition, and italicized limitations indicate the limitation contingent upon that condition). As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations.
In reference to Claim 18, Hung discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Hung further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraphs 6-7).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0123109 to Yamagishi et al. (“Yamagishi”).
In reference to Claim 17, Yamagishi discloses a method comprising: in a network interface device (See Figure 2 Number 31): performing a received command in one or more packets (See Paragraphs 50 and 57) while at least one compute device controlled by the network interface device (See Figure 2 Number 39 and Paragraphs 52-54 and 57) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 4-5 and 57), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one compute device that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 52-54 and 57), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraph 57), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device (See Figure 2 Number 34 and Paragraph 57), based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, providing the inventory of the compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the computer devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption, and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 57).
It is noted that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition (underlined limitations in the above rejection indicate the condition, and italicized limitations indicate the limitation contingent upon that condition). As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations.
In reference to Claim 18, Yamagishi discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Yamagishi further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Figure 2 Number 33 and Paragraph 57).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 10-11, 13, 17-18, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusoodanan and US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0028911 to Morita (“Morita”)
In reference to Claim 1, Madhusoodanan discloses an apparatus comprising: a network interface device (See Figure 1 Number 100, Figure 2 Number 200, and Paragraphs 12 and 20) comprising: at least one accelerator (See Figures 1 and 2 Numbers 130 and 140 and Paragraphs 12 and 20 [as per Paragraphs 57 and 71 of Applicant’s disclosure, an accelerator is not limited as to the particular type of processing device]) and switching circuitry (See Figure 1 Number 160, Figure 2 Number 210, and Paragraphs 12 and 20); and circuitry to perform a received command in one or more packets while at least one of the at least one accelerator is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one accelerator that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first accelerator, causing increase in power supplied to the first accelerator (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 33, and 35-36), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second accelerator, causing reduction of power to the second accelerator (See Paragraphs 37-39), and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first accelerator receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 36). Madhusoodanan further discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packets (See Paragraph 37). However, Madhusoodanan does not explicitly disclose that based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of the accelerators, providing the inventory of the accelerators, wherein the inventory of accelerators comprises an indicator of operations performed by the accelerators and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption. Morita discloses that based on receiving a request for an inventory of accelerators at a network interface device, providing the inventory of the accelerators (See Paragraphs 41, 47, 63-64, 66, 69, and 71-72), wherein the inventory of accelerators comprises an indicator of operations performed by the accelerators and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption (See Paragraphs 41, 47, and 63 [PDF and TIFF each support performing compression, decompression, encryption, and decryption]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan using the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because Madhusoodanan discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packet network requests (See Paragraph 37 Madhusoodanan), and the simple substitution of the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita as one of the magic packet network requests of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of notifying the remote devices of the operations that can be performed by the network interface device and accelerators (See Paragraph 37 of Madhusoodanan and Paragraphs 41 and 66 of Morita).
In reference to Claim 2, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that the at least one accelerator comprises one or more of: a graphics processing unit (GPU), central processing unit (CPU) (See Paragraphs 12 and 20 [a PC/computer necessarily includes a CPU]), storage (See Paragraphs 12 and 20 [a PC/computer necessarily includes storage]), or memory (See Paragraphs 12 and 20 [a PC/computer necessarily includes memory]).
In reference to Claim 4, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 35, and 41).
In reference to Claim 8, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that the network interface device comprises one or more of: a network interface controller (NIC) (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 20, and 37), a remote direct memory access (RDMA)-enabled NIC, SmartNIC, router (See Paragraphs 12 and 20), switch (See Paragraphs 12 and 20), forwarding element (See Paragraphs 12 and 20), infrastructure processing unit (IPU) (See Paragraphs 12 and 20), data processing unit (DPU) (See Paragraphs 12 and 20), or network-attached appliance (See Paragraphs 12, 20, and 35).
Claim 10 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning. Madhusoodanan further discloses at least one non transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that are executed by one or more processors (See Figures 3 and 4 and Paragraphs 1, 3, 28, and 32).
Claim 11 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 13 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 17, Madhusoodanan discloses a method comprising: in a network interface device (See Figure 1 Number 100, Figure 2 Number 200, and Paragraphs 12 and 20): performing a received command in one or more packets (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26) while at least one compute device (See Figures 1 and 2 Numbers 130 and 140 and Paragraphs 12 and 20) controlled by the network interface device is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), wherein the command is associated with operation of the at least one of the at least one compute device that is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 33, and 35-36), based on the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device (See Paragraphs 37-39), and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 36). However, Madhusoodanan does not explicitly disclose that based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of the accelerators, providing the inventory of the accelerators, wherein the inventory of accelerators comprises an indicator of operations performed by the accelerators and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption. Morita discloses that based on receiving a request for an inventory of accelerators at a network interface device, providing the inventory of the accelerators (See Paragraphs 41, 47, 63-64, 66, 69, and 71-72), wherein the inventory of accelerators comprises an indicator of operations performed by the accelerators and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption (See Paragraphs 41, 47, and 63 [PDF and TIFF each support performing compression, decompression, encryption, and decryption]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan using the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Madhusoodanan discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packet network requests (See Paragraph 37 Madhusoodanan), and the simple substitution of the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita as one of the magic packet network requests of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of notifying the remote devices of the operations that can be performed by the network interface device and accelerators (See Paragraph 37 of Madhusoodanan and Paragraphs 41 and 66 of Morita).
It is noted that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition. As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations. However, in an effort to expedite prosecution, and as a courtesy to Applicant, the alternative rejection was made interpreting the claim as requiring the contingent limitation.
In reference to Claim 18, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 35, and 41).
In reference to Claim 22, Madhusoodanan discloses an apparatus comprising: switch circuitry (See Figure 1 Number 160, Figure 2 Number 210, and Paragraphs 12 and 20) comprising an interface to multiple accelerator devices (See Figures 1 and 2 Numbers 130 and 140 and Paragraphs 12 and 20 [as per Paragraphs 57 and 71 of Applicant’s disclosure, an accelerator is not limited as to the particular type of processing device]), wherein: in response to a wake on compute command received in a packet, cause increase in power to at least one of the multiple accelerator devices and execution of a request to perform operations (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 33, and 35-36). Madhusoodanan further discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packets (See Paragraph 37). However, Madhusoodanan does not explicitly disclose that in response to a request received in a second packet for an inventory of accelerator devices, provide the inventory of the accelerator devices, wherein the inventory of the accelerator devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the accelerator devices and the operations performed by the accelerator devices comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption. Morita discloses that based on receiving a request for an inventory of accelerators at a network interface device, providing the inventory of the accelerators (See Paragraphs 41, 47, 63-64, 66, 69, and 71-72), wherein the inventory of accelerators comprises an indicator of operations performed by the accelerators and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption (See Paragraphs 41, 47, and 63 [PDF and TIFF each support performing compression, decompression, encryption, and decryption]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan using the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita, resulting in the invention of Claim 22, because Madhusoodanan discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packet network requests (See Paragraph 37 Madhusoodanan), and the simple substitution of the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita as one of the magic packet network requests of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of notifying the remote devices of the operations that can be performed by the network interface device and accelerators (See Paragraph 37 of Madhusoodanan and Paragraphs 41 and 66 of Morita).
In reference to Claim 24, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 22 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that the wake on compute command comprises a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 35, and 41).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusoodanan and Morita as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of knowledge commonly known in the art.
In reference to Claim 3, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Madhusoodanan and Morita are silent as to the particular structure of the circuitry to perform switching, and do not explicitly disclose that the circuitry to perform switching is to perform switching based at least on: Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe), Compute Express Link (CXL), or Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express (UCIe). Official Notice is taken that the use of PCIe switching circuitry is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan and Morita using the well-known PCIe switching circuitry as the circuitry to perform switching, resulting in the invention of Claim 3, in order to yield the predictable result of performing the switching using a standardized communications protocol that provides high speed, low latency, scalability, backwards compatibility, management capabilities to reduce power consumption.
Claim 12 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusoodanan as applied to Claims 17 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 8,407,332 to Kraipak et al. (“Kraipak”).
In reference to Claim 19, Madhusoodanan discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packets (See Paragraph 37). However, Madhusoodanan does not explicitly disclose that the command is to request capabilities of the at least one compute device, wherein the capabilities comprise one or more of: a processor type, processor clock frequency, device power utilization, device power cap, or storage capacity, and wherein the processor type comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU), central processing unit (CPU), or accelerator. Kraipak discloses the use of a command to request capabilities of at least one compute device (See Figure 11 Numbers 1101a-1101c, Column 7 Lines 13-46, and Column 11 Line 62 – Column 12 Line 5), wherein the capabilities comprise one or more of: a processor type (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), processor clock frequency (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), device power utilization, device power cap, or storage capacity (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), and wherein the processor type comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), central processing unit (CPU) (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), or accelerator (See Column 7 Lines 13-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan and Morita using the capabilities request of Kraipak, resulting in the invention of Claim 19, because Madhusoodanan discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packet network requests (See Paragraph 37 Madhusoodanan), and the simple substitution of the capabilities request of Kraipak as one of the magic packet network requests of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of notifying the remote devices of the capabilities of the network interface device and accelerators (See Paragraph 37 of Madhusoodanan and Column 7 Lines 13-46 of Kraipak).
Claim(s) 5, 14, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusoodanan and Morita as applied to Claims 1, 10, 17, and 22 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 8,407,332 to Kraipak et al. (“Kraipak”).
In reference to Claim 5, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packets (See Paragraph 37). However, Madhusoodanan and Morita do not explicitly disclose that the command is to request capabilities of the at least one accelerator, wherein the capabilities comprise one or more of: a processor type, processor clock frequency, device power utilization, device power cap, or storage capacity, and wherein the processor type comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) or central processing unit (CPU). Kraipak discloses the use of a command to request capabilities of at least one accelerator (See Figure 11 Numbers 1101a-1101c, Column 7 Lines 13-46, and Column 11 Line 62 – Column 12 Line 5), wherein the capabilities comprise one or more of: a processor type (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), processor clock frequency (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), device power utilization, device power cap, or storage capacity (See Column 7 Lines 13-46), and wherein the processor type comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) (See Column 7 Lines 13-46) or central processing unit (CPU) (See Column 7 Lines 13-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan and Morita using the capabilities request of Kraipak, resulting in the invention of Claim 4, because Madhusoodanan discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packet network requests (See Paragraph 37 Madhusoodanan), and the simple substitution of the i capabilities request of Kraipak as one of the magic packet network requests of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of notifying the remote devices of the capabilities of the network interface device and accelerators (See Paragraph 37 of Madhusoodanan and Column 7 Lines 13-46 of Kraipak).
Claims 14, 19, and 23 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 4 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusoodanan and Morita as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of knowledge commonly known in the art, as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0319610 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) and admitted by Applicant to be prior art.
In reference to Claim 9, Madhusoodanan and Morita disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Madhusoodanan further discloses providing power to the at least one accelerator (See Figures 1 and 2 Number 130 and Paragraphs 37-38) and to a second of the at least one accelerator (See Figures 1 and 2 Number 140 and Paragraphs 37-38). However, Madhusoodanan and Morita do not explicitly disclose at least one power rail to provide power to the at least one accelerator to provide power to one of the at least one accelerator independent of power to a second of the at least one accelerator. Official Notice is taken that the use of separate power rails to provide independent power to different computer devices is well known in the art, as evidenced by Yu (See Paragraph 34). This has been admitted by Applicant to be prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Madhusoodanan and Morita using the well-known separate power rails for each of the compute devices, resulting in the invention of Claim 9, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for independent monitoring and control of the power supply to each compute device without affecting the operation of the other compute devices (See Paragraph 34 of Yu).
Response to Arguments
Official Notice was taken in the previous Office Action. To adequately traverse such a finding, an Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. If the Applicant does not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. (See MPEP 2144.03 C). The Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant’s failure to traverse the assertion.
Applicant’s arguments files 12 November 2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, and 22-24 (all rejections) and Claims 17-19 (all rejections except those in view of Madhusoodanan) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 with respect to Claims 17-19 in view of Madhusoodanan have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Madhusoodanan does not disclose that based on the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, providing the inventory of the compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the computer devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption (See Pages 13-14). In response, the Examiner notes that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition. As indicated above, in a method claim, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Thus, the prior art need not disclose the contingent limitations.
However, in an effort to expedite prosecution, and as a courtesy to Applicant, an alternative rejection has been provided interpreting the claim as requiring the contingent limitation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175