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 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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0169677 to Madhusoodanan (“Madhusoodanan”), European Patent Application Number EP 3496309 A1 to Tan et al. (“Tan”), and US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0167271 to Bower, III et al. (“Bower”).
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) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), wherein: a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 37-38), and in response to 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), in response to 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), in response to 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). However, Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed (See Paragraph 52).
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 magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Madhusoodanan in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Madhusoodanan, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Madhusoodanan.
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, Tan, and Bower 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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0286347 to Kanigicherla et al. (“Kanigicherla”), Tan, and Bower.
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) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraph 42), wherein: a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraph 42), and in response to 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), in response to the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device, in response to 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). However, Kanigicherla is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed (See Paragraph 52).
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 Kanigicherla using the magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Kanigicherla is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Fleming would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Kanigicherla is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Kanigicherla would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Kanigicherla in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Kanigicherla, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Fleming.
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, Tan, and Bower disclose 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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0297087 to Fleming (“Fleming”), Tan, and Bower.
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 (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: a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraph 13), and in response to 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), in response to the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device, in response to 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). However, Fleming is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed (See Paragraph 52).
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 Fleming using the magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Fleming is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Fleming would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Fleming is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Fleming would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Fleming in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Fleming, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Fleming.
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, Tan, and Bower disclose 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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
In reference to Claim 19, Fleming, Tan, and Bower disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Fleming further discloses that execution of the command is to request reporting of 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. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0334206 to Hung (“Hung”), Tan, and Bower.
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 (See Figure 3A Numbers 140, 240, and 250 and Paragraph 39) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 40 and 43-48), wherein: a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraphs 6-7), and in response to 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), in response to 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), in response to 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). However, Hung is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed (See Paragraph 52).
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 Hung using the magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Hung is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Fleming would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Hung is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Hung would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Hung in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Hung, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Fleming.
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, Tan, and Bower disclose 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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0123109 to Yamagishi et al. (“Yamagishi”), Tan, and Bower.
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 (See Figure 2 Number 39 and Paragraphs 52-54 and 57) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 4-5 and 57), wherein: a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Figure 2 Number 33 and Paragraph 57), and in response to 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), in response to the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, causing reduction of power to the second compute device, in response to 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. However, Yamagishi is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed (See Paragraph 52).
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 Yamagishi using the magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Yamagishi is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Fleming would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Yamagishi is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Yamagishi would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Yamagishi in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Yamagishi, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Fleming.
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, Tan, and Bower disclose 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 Paragraph 42). Bower 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(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, Tan, Bower, 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 and Paragraphs 12 and 20) comprising: a host interface (See Figure 1 interface of Number 160 connected to Number 150); a network interface (See Figure 1 interface of Number 160 connected to Numbers 130 and 140) and circuitry to perform a received command in one or more packets while at least one of 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]) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), wherein; a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 37-38), and: based on the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first accelerator, execution of the command is to cause 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, execution of the command is to cause reduction of power to the second accelerator (See Paragraphs 37-39), and based on the command comprising a request to perform a workload, execution of the command is to cause performance of the workload on the first accelerator receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 36). However, Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed by the circuitry. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed by circuitry (See Paragraph 52). Madhusoodanan further discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packets (See Paragraph 37). 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, execution of the command is to cause output of 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, execution of the command is to cause output of 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 magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, and using the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower); and 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). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Madhusoodanan in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Madhusoodanan, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Madhusoodanan.
In reference to Claim 2, Madhusoodanan, Tan, Bower, 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, Tan, Bower, 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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
In reference to Claim 8, Madhusoodanan, Tan, Bower, 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) is in a reduced power state (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 21-26), wherein: a packet of the one or more packets comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 37-38), and: in response to the command comprising a request to increase power supplied to a first compute device, execution of the command causing increase in power supplied to the first compute device (See Paragraphs 12, 14, 21, 33, and 35-36), in response to the command comprising a request to reduce power supplied to a second compute device, execution of the command causing reduction of power to the second compute device (See Paragraphs 37-39), and in response to the command comprising a request to perform a workload, execution of the command causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Paragraph 36). However, Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed by the circuitry. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed by circuitry (See Paragraph 52). Madhusoodanan further discloses that additional functionality can be provided through the use of additional types of magic packets (See Paragraph 37). Madhusoodanan further does not explicitly disclose that in response to the command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices, execution of the command causing providing the inventory of compute devices, wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the compute devices and comprises one or more of: compression, decompression, encryption, or decryption. Morita discloses that in response to a command comprising a request for an inventory of compute devices at a network interface device, execution of the command causing providing the inventory of the compute devices (See Paragraphs 41, 47, 63-64, 66, 69, and 71-72), wherein the inventory of compute devices comprises an indicator of operations performed by the compute devices 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 magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, and using the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita resulting in the invention of Claim 17, because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower); and 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). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Madhusoodanan in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Madhusoodanan, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Madhusoodanan.
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, Tan, Bower, 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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
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: a packet comprises a magic packet, the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates a command to be performed (See Paragraphs 14-15 and 37-38), in response to the command comprising a wake on compute command, 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), in response to the command comprising a request to reduce power to an accelerator device of the multiple accelerator devices, cause reduction of power to the accelerator (See Paragraphs 37-39). However, Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet and indicates the command to be performed, and does not explicitly disclose at least one header field of the packet is to identify the packet as a magic packet, and the at least one header field of the packet is to indicate a command to be performed by the circuitry. Tan discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to identify the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24). Bower discloses the use of a header field of a magic packet to indicate a command to be performed by circuitry (See Paragraph 52). 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 the command comprising a request 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 magic packet identification header field of Tan and the magic packet command header field of Bower, and using the inventory of accelerators network request of Morita resulting in the invention of Claim 22, because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet is identified as a magic packet, and the simple substitution of the magic packet identification header field of Tan as the magic packet identification indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of identifying the packet as a magic packet (See Paragraph 24 of Tan); and because Madhusoodanan is silent as to how the magic packet indicates the command to be performed, and the simple substitution of the magic packet command header field of Bower as the magic packet command to be performed indication of Madhusoodanan would have yielded the predictable result of providing the instructions indicating the command to be performed (See Paragraph 52 of Bower); and 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). Furthermore, there are a limited number of locations within the magic packet of Madhusoodanan in which to provide the identification indication and the command to be performed indication (header, body/payload, and trailer), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the particular location of this information in the magic packet would not affect the functionality of the device of Madhusoodanan, and one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Madhusoodanan.
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). Bower further discloses that the one or more packets comprise a Wake-on-LAN (WoL) magic packet (See Paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusoodanan, Tan, Bower, and Morita as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of knowledge commonly known in the art and admitted by Applicant to be prior 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. 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, Tan, Bower, 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, Tan, and Bower 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 execution of the command requests 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 reporting 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, Tan, and Bower, 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, Tan, Bower, and Morita as applied to Claims 1, 10, 17, and 22 above, and further in view of Kraipak.
In reference to Claim 5, Madhusoodanan, Tan, Bower, 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 execution of the command is to request a report of 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 a report of 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, Tan, Bower, 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, Tan, Bower, 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, Tan, Bower, 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 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, Tan, Bower, 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 18 May 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant has argued that Madhusoodanan, Kanigicherla, Fleming, Hung, and Yamagishi do not disclose the magic packets causing any reduction of power to the second compute device, providing the inventory of the compute devices, or causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Pages 8-12). In response, the Examiner notes that Claim 17 is a method claim reciting limitations contingent on occurrence of a condition. The claims state that various actions occur “in response to” a particular condition occurring, but do not require the condition to actually occur. Thus, if the particular condition does not occur, any actions performed in response to the particular condition also do not occur. 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.
Furthermore, and notwithstanding the above, it is noted that Madhusoodanan discloses that in response to 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); Kanigicherla discloses that 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); Fleming discloses that 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); and Hung discloses that in response to 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), 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).
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.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 22, Applicant has argued that Madhusoodanan and Morita do not disclose the magic packets causing any reduction of power to the second compute device, providing the inventory of the compute devices, or causing performance of the workload on the first compute device receiving the increased supplied power (See Pages 12-13). In response, the Examiner notes that
Madhusoodanan discloses that in response to 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); and 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]).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the dependent claims are based upon and the same as those presented with respect to the independent claims (See Pages 14-15). The Examiner’s response is therefore the same.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights