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 .
This action is in response to the application and claims filed 10/20/2022. Claims 1-20 are
pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 and 15 and their dependents and 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 and 15 and their dependents recites the limitation "the processing system storage," and “the processing system storage;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected for the same reason. They recite “the processing system storage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data: This limitation is a mental process because a person can use their vision to make inferences on data.
Perform, (…) a remediation action based on the inferencing data. This limitation is a mental process because a person can perform a corrective action based on a type of data.
perform a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data; The claim or the specification does not define what is “metadata analysis” therefore, it is considered to be a generic, functional term i.e. a mental process. A person mentally or with a pen and paper can look at the encoded data and determine the metadata in their head thereby “performing metadata analysis”.
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
a processor; a processing system operatively connected to the processor; a processing system storage; an enhanced networking interface operatively connected to the processing system, wherein the enhanced networking interface is programmed to: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtain encoded data from a local data source; Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
store the metadata in the processing system storage,: This limitation is merely a post-solution step of storing the data—a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. The method storing is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, storing step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the processing system is programmed to: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtain the metadata from the processing system storage; Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
perform a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data…: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner’s note (EN): The “computer” in the claim is interpreted as applying a generic computer on the abstract idea of “perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data”.
…using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“provide the inferencing data to the processor;” and “by the processor” Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
a processor; a processing system operatively connected to the processor; a processing system storage; an enhanced networking interface operatively connected to the processing system, wherein the enhanced networking interface is programmed to: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtain encoded data from a local data source; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
store the metadata in the processing system storage,: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
wherein the processing system is programmed to: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtain the metadata from the processing system storage; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
perform a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data…: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner’s note (EN): The “computer” in the claim is interpreted as applying a generic computer on the abstract idea of “perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data”.
…using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
“provide the inferencing data to the processor;” and “by the processor” Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements considered individually or in combination do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which claim 2 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU). Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) – Examiner’s Note (EN): The claim only recites a generic off the shelf GPU. The GPU is performing a generic computer function which consists of the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, step 2A prong 1. Therefore, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic off the shelf GPU to perform abstract ideas amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 2 above, which claim 3 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the processing system storage comprises GPU direct storage. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) –Examiner’s Note (EN): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic GDS (GPU direct storage). The GDS is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage component performing a generic computer function of storing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: wherein the processing system storage comprises GPU direct storage. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) –Examiner’s Note (EN): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic GDS (GPU direct storage). The GDS is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage component performing a generic computer function of storing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional elements considered individually or in combination do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which claim 4 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the enhanced networking interface accesses the processing system storage via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA. The claim recites a generic computer component at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component see (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: wherein the enhanced networking interface accesses the processing system storage via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA. The claim recites a generic computer component at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component see (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements considered individually or in combination do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which claim 5 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the encoded data is video stream data generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application. Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). EN: The limitation merely specifies the source of the data (a video camera and the method of its generation (VMS application.)
Step 2B: wherein the encoded data is video stream data generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application. This falls under well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim) See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements considered individually or in combination do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which claim 6 depends on. Claim 6 further recites:
wherein the metadata comprises timestamps for the video stream data: A person can mentally or with a pen and paper analyze timestamps i.e. identify video frames having a timestamp between a certain time period.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which claim 6 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the enhanced networking interface comprises: a network interface card, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and a data processing unit. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: wherein the metadata comprises timestamps for the video stream data. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements considered individually or in combination do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data: This limitation is a mental process because a person can use their vision to make inferences on data.
Perform, (…) a remediation action based on the inferencing data. This limitation is a mental process because a person can perform a corrective action based on a type of data.
performing a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data; The claim or the specification does not define what is “metadata analysis” therefore, it is considered to be a generic, functional term i.e. a mental process. A person mentally or with a pen and paper can look at the encoded data and determine the metadata in their head thereby “performing metadata analysis”.
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
A method for managing hardware resources,: The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining, (…) encoded data from a local data source; Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
… by an enhanced networking interface…: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
storing the metadata in the processing system storage, obtaining, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, the metadata from the processing system storage; Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). EN: this is interpreted as storing and obtaining data which is mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activity.
performing a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner’s note (EN): The “computer” in the claim is interpreted as applying a generic computer on the abstract idea of “perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data”.
“provide the inferencing data to the processor;” and “by the processor” Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
A method for managing hardware resources,: The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining, (…) encoded data from a local data source; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
… by an enhanced networking interface…: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
storing the metadata in the processing system storage, obtaining, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, the metadata from the processing system storage; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
performing a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner’s note (EN): The “computer” in the claim is interpreted as applying a generic computer on the abstract idea of “perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data”.
“provide the inferencing data to the processor;” and “by the processor” Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 is a method claim that recite the same limitations as claim 2, therefore claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 10 is a method claim that recite the same limitations as claim 3, therefore claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 11 is a method claim that recite the same limitations as claim 4, therefore claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 12 is a method claim that recite the same limitations as claim 5, therefore claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 13 is a method claim that recite the same limitations as claim 6, therefore claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 14 is a method claim that recite the same limitations as claim 7, therefore claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data: This limitation is a mental process because a person can use their vision to make inferences on data.
Perform, (…) a remediation action based on the inferencing data: This limitation is a mental process because a person can perform a corrective action based on a type of data.
performing a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data; The claim or the specification does not define what is “metadata analysis” therefore, it is considered to be a generic, functional term i.e. a mental process. A person mentally or with a pen and paper can look at the encoded data and determine the metadata in their head thereby “performing metadata analysis”.
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for managing information handling systems, the method comprising: (Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
obtaining, (…) encoded data from a local data source; Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
… by an enhanced networking interface…: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
storing the metadata in the processing system storage, obtaining, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, the metadata from the processing system storage; Data Gather- Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). EN: this is interpreted as storing and obtaining data which is mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activity.
performing a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner’s note (EN): The “computer” in the claim is interpreted as applying a generic computer on the abstract idea of “perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data”.
“provide the inferencing data to the processor;” and “by the processor” Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for managing information handling systems, the method comprising: (Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
A method for managing hardware resources,: The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining, (…) encoded data from a local data source; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
… by an enhanced networking interface…: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
storing the metadata in the processing system storage, obtaining, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, the metadata from the processing system storage; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely gathering data is a well- understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
performing a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner’s note (EN): The “computer” in the claim is interpreted as applying a generic computer on the abstract idea of “perform a (…) vision inferencing on the encoded data”.
“provide the inferencing data to the processor;” and “by the processor” Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements considered individually or in combination do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite the same limitations of claim 2, therefore claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 17 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite the same limitations of claim 3, therefore claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite the same limitations of claim 4, therefore claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite the same limitations of claim 5, therefore claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite the same limitations of claim 7, therefore claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 6-11, 13-16, 18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12293566 B2 in view of Tork et al. ("Lynx: A SmartNIC-driven Accelerator-centric Architecture for Network Servers", hereinafter "Tork") and Titus et al. (US 20100026802 A1), hereinafter "Titus".
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant application’s claims are contained in their counterpart claims of the reference patent, with the exception that the reference patent recites “decoding of the encoded data”, and “provide the decoded data to the processing system” and the instant application recites “a processing system storage”, “a metadata analysis of the encoded data” and “store the metadata in the processing system storage”. This is not considered to be a significant distinction as the claims of the instant application are directed to a substantially identical hardware architecture comprising the same processor, processing system, and enhanced networking interface. A comparison chart of the claims follows, followed by an analysis.
Instant Application
Reference Patent (US 12293566 B2)
1. A system, comprising: a processor; a processing system operatively connected to the processor;
a processing system storage;
an enhanced networking interface operatively connected to the processing system, wherein the enhanced networking interface is programmed to:
obtain encoded data from a local data source;
perform a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data;
store the metadata in the processing system storage,
wherein the processing system is programmed to:
obtain the metadata from the processing system storage;
perform a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the
encoded data using the metadata
to obtain inferencing data; and provide the inferencing data to the processor; and perform, by the processor, a remediation action based on the inferencing data.
1. A system, comprising: a processor; a processing system operatively connected to the processor;
an enhanced networking interface operatively connected to the processing system, wherein the enhanced networking interface is programmed to:
obtain encoded data from a local data source;
perform a decoding of the encoded data to obtain decoded data;
provide the decoded data to the processing system,
wherein the processing system is programmed to:
obtain the decoded data from the enhanced networking interface;
perform a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the
decoded data
to obtain inferencing data; provide the inferencing data to the processor; and perform, by the processor, a remediation action based on the inferencing data.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU).
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU).
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the enhanced networking interface
accesses the processing system storage
via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the enhanced networking interface
obtains the encoded data
via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the encoded data is video stream data generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the video stream data is generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application on the local data source.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the
metadata comprises timestamps for the
video stream data.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the
encoded data
is video stream data.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the enhanced networking interface comprises: a network interface card, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and a data processing unit.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the enhanced networking interface comprises: a network interface card, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and a data processing unit.
8. A method for managing hardware resources, comprising: obtaining, by an enhanced networking interface, encoded data from a local data source; performing a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data; storing the metadata in the processing system storage, obtaining, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, the metadata from the processing system storage; performing a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and providing the inferencing data to a processor; and performing, by the processor, a remediation action based on the inferencing data.
8. A method for managing hardware resources, comprising: obtaining, by an enhanced networking interface, encoded data from a local data source; performing a decoding of the encoded data to obtain decoded data; performing, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the decoded data to obtain inferencing data; and providing the inferencing data to a processor, and performing, by the processor, a remediation action based on the inferencing data.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU).
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU).
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the enhanced networking interface accesses the processing system storage via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA.
13. The method of claim 8, wherein the enhanced networking interface obtains the encoded data via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA.
12. The method of claim 8, wherein the encoded data is video stream data generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the video stream data is generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application on the local data source.
13. The method of claim 8, wherein the metadata comprises timestamps for the video stream data.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the encoded data is video stream data.
14. The method of claim 8, wherein the enhanced networking interface comprises: a network interface card, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and a data processing unit.
14. The method of claim 8, wherein the enhanced networking interface comprises: a network interface card, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and a data processing unit.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for managing information handling systems, the method comprising: obtaining, by an enhanced networking interface, encoded data from a local data source; performing a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data; storing the metadata in the processing system storage, obtaining, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, the metadata from the processing system storage; performing a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and providing the inferencing data to a processor; and performing, by the processor, a remediation action based on the inferencing data.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor to perform a method for managing hardware resources, the method comprising: obtaining, by an enhanced networking interface, encoded data from a local data source; performing a decoding of the encoded data to obtain decoded data; performing, by a processing system operatively connected to the enhanced networking interface, a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the decoded data to obtain inferencing data; and providing the inferencing data to a processor, and performing, by the processor, a remediation action based on the inferencing data.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU).
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU).
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the enhanced networking interface accesses the processing system storage via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA.
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the enhanced networking interface obtains the encoded data via remote direct memory access (RDMA), and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage via the RDMA.
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the encoded data is video stream data generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application.
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the video stream data is generated by a video camera, and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application on the local data source.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are identical to the reference application’s claims as shown in the comparison chart above. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are essentially identical to their counterparts (claims 1, 3, and 6) in the reference application, with the limitations of “a processing system storage;”, “store the metadata in the processing system storage,”, obtain the metadata from the processing system storage;. “accesses the processing system storage” and “perform a metadata analysis … to obtain metadata”, “metadata comprises timestamps”.
Tork teaches a processing system storage; (Page 122, “An mqueue consists of two producer-consumer ring buffers called receive (RX) and transmit (TX) queues, and their respective notification and completion registers for producer-consumer synchronization. Mqueues and their status registers are located in accelerators’ local memory.”) store the metadata in the processing system storage, (Page 122, “Mqueues and their status registers are located in accelerators’ local memory.” Page 124, “To reduce the number of RDMA operations for updating the mqueue, we append control metadata to each message.” EN: this denotes metadata which get sent to the Mqueues which reside in the GPU’s memory (processing system storage).) obtain the metadata from the processing system storage; (Page 124, “The accelerator polls this notification register while waiting for a new message.” EN: The GPU polls the message queue in its local memory to retrieve the message and its metadata.) accesses the processing system storage, (Page 122, “It runs on the SNIC, and uses one-sided RDMA to access the mqueues in the accelerator.”) “perform a metadata analysis … to obtain metadata” (Page 124, “The metadata occupies 4 bytes, and includes (1) total message size, (2) error status from the Bluefield (if a connection error is detected), and (3) notification register (doorbell) for the queue. The accelerator polls this notification register while waiting for a new message.” EN: This denotes the system analyzing the incoming encoded data (the packet) to find its length (total message size.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the elements in claim 1 and 6 of the reference application to include the storing and accessing of metadata in a processing system storage and performing metadata analysis. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce latency and improve efficiency. (Tork, Page 122, “Mqueues and their status registers are located in accelerators’ local memory. Therefore, the latency of enqueuing an I/O operation on the accelerator is exactly the latency of accelerator local memory access, which is important for reducing the overhead for the accelerator-side I/O.”) And for the motivation for performing metadata analysis: (Tork, Page 124, “To reduce the number of RDMA operations for updating the mqueue, we append control metadata to each message.”)
Titus teaches metadata comprises timestamps (Para 202, “The event discriminator checks all video primitives being generated according to FIG. 5 and determines if any video primitives exist which have the following properties: a timestamp between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the elements in claim 3 of the reference application to include timestamps. The motivation for doing so would be to enable efficient analysis on the data. Page 232, “The video content can be reanalyzed with the additional embodiment in a relatively short time because only the video primitives are reviewed and because the video source is not reprocessed. This provides a great efficiency improvement over current state-of-the-art systems.”
Similarly, claims 8, 9, 11-14 are rejected since they are method claims that recite identical limitations as claims 1-4, 6, 7 in the reference application. Similarly, claims 15, 16, 18, 19 are rejected since they are non-transitory computer readable medium claims that recite identical limitations as claims 1, 2, 4, 6 in the reference application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tork et al. ("Lynx: A SmartNIC-driven Accelerator-centric Architecture for Network Servers", hereinafter "Tork") in view of Titus et al. (US 20100026802 A1), hereinafter "Titus".
Claim 1
Tork teaches: A system, comprising: (page 117, abstract “We propose Lynx, an accelerator-centric network server architecture that offloads the server data and control planes to the SmartNIC, and enables direct networking from accelerators via a lightweight hardware-friendly I/O mechanism.”) a processor; (Page 120, “We observe that the resulting implementation does not run any application logic on the CPU, besides a series of GPU kernel invocation commands. In fact, the accelerated system design which minimizes the CPU involvement is not specific to systems with GPUs”) a processing system operatively connected to the processor;
PNG
media_image1.png
175
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figure 2 depicts the Accelerator (processing system) operatively connected to the processor (CPU))
a processing system storage; (Page 122, “An mqueue consists of two producer-consumer ring buffers called receive (RX) and transmit (TX) queues, and their respective notification and completion registers for producer-consumer synchronization. Mqueues and their status registers are located in accelerators’ local memory.”) an enhanced networking interface operatively connected to the processing system, (Page 117 Abstract, “We propose Lynx, an accelerator-centric network server architecture that offloads the server data and control planes to the SmartNIC.”) wherein the enhanced networking interface is programmed to: obtain encoded data from a (Page 118, “The SNIC runs a full network stack and a generic network server that listens on the application-specified ports…” Page 127, “A client sends 28×28 grayscale images from the standard MNIST dataset…”) perform a metadata analysis of the encoded data to obtain metadata associated with the encoded data; (Page 124, “The metadata occupies 4 bytes, and includes (1) total message size, (2) error status from the Bluefield (if a connection error is detected), and (3) notification register (doorbell) for the queue. The accelerator polls this notification register while waiting for a new message.” EN: This denotes the system analyzing the incoming encoded data (the packet) to find its length (total message size).) store the metadata in the processing system storage, (Page 122, “Mqueues and their status registers are located in accelerators’ local memory.” Page 124, “To reduce the number of RDMA operations for updating the mqueue, we append control metadata to each message.” EN: this denotes metadata which get sent to the Mqueues which reside in the GPU’s memory (processing system storage).) wherein the processing system is programmed to: obtain the metadata from the processing system storage; (Page 124, “The accelerator polls this notification register while waiting for a new message.” EN: The GPU polls the message queue in its local memory to retrieve the message and its metadata.) perform a computer vision (CV) inferencing on the encoded data using the metadata to obtain inferencing data; and (Page 118, “We evaluate the system performance and scalability using microbenchmarks and realistic applications. For example, we develop a LeNet [27] model-serving server for digit recognition, implemented entirely on the GPU.” Page 127, “and the server returns the recognized digit by running the LeNet inference on the GPU.” -- Examiner’s Note (EN): Tork explicitly describes executing a Face Verification server (disclosed in page 128, section 6.4) and LeNet neural network for digit recognition on the GPU (as quoted above). These are standard computer vision (CV) inferencing tasks where the system analyzes images to verify identities or recognize characters.) the inferencing data, inferencing data (Page 118, “We evaluate the system performance and scalability using microbenchmarks and realistic applications. For example, we develop a LeNet [27] model-serving server for digit recognition, implemented entirely on the GPU.” Page 127, “and the server returns the recognized digit by running the LeNet inference on the GPU.”)
Tork does not distinctly disclose: “local data” and “provide (…) data to the processor; and perform, by the processor, a remediation action based on the (…) data.”
However, Titus teaches: “local data” (Para 189, “In block 41, the computer system 11 obtains source video from the video sensors 14 and/or the video recorders 15.” Para 130, “Each video sensor 14 can be coupled to the computer system 11 using, for example, a direct connection (e.g., a firewire digital camera interface) or a network.”) provide (…) data to the processor; (Para 87, “The content analysis module (block 235) on the video processing platform (block 232) generates primitives that are transmitted to the back-end processing platform (block 239).”) and perform, by the processor, a remediation action based on the (…) data.” (Abstract, “The system can undertake a response, such as an alarm, based on extracted event occurrences.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine Tork’s method of acquiring inferencing data with Titus’s teaching of providing the data (generated from locally sourced data) to the processor and the processor performing a remediation action. Combining the teachings would create a system processor that takes in inferencing data (generated based on outputs from a local source) and performs a remediation action.The motivation for doing so would be to enable the system to intelligently adapt its operational parameters and resource allocation based on locally sourced data. (Para 109, “In general, alerts may be used for a variety of command and control functions which may further include, but are not limited to, controlling image enhancement software… and controlling other sensors.”) By using local sources for the data, it enables the system to generate real-time remediation action. (Para 149, “Real-time extraction of the video primitives from the video stream is desirable to enable the system to be capable of generating real-time alerts, and to do so, since the video provides a continuous input stream, the system cannot fall behind.)
Claim 2
Tork in view of Titus teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Tork further teaches:
wherein the processing system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU). (Page 118, “We prototype Lynx on a system with multiple local and remote NVIDIA GPUs, as well as one Intel Visual Compute Accelerator” EN: Tork describes a system where the “processing system” referred to as the “accelerator” in the text consists of graphics processing units (GPUs).
Claim 3
Tork in view of Titus teaches all the limitations of claim 2, Tork further teaches:
wherein the processing system storage comprises GPU direct storage. (Page 118, “For remote access, the SNIC uses its internal hardware accelerated RDMA engine to efficiently read from/write to the mqueues via one-sided RDMA.” Page 122, “For example, peer-to-peer GPU access is readily available via GPUdirectRDMA [38] in NVIDIA GPUs” EN: Paragraph 44 of the instant application states that “GPU direct storage” as a storage that allows for a “direct connection” via RDMA “without requiring the use of the compute resource set [CPU].” This is functionally the same as in Tork’s teaching; which denotes accessing GPU memory using GPUDirect RDMA. )
Claim 4
Tork in view of Titus teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Tork further teaches:
wherein the enhanced networking interface accesses the processing system storage via remote direct memory access (RDMA), (Page 122, “It runs on the SNIC, and uses one-sided RDMA to access the mqueues in the accelerator.”) and wherein the processing system accesses the processing system storage (…). (Page 124, “The accelerator polls this notification register while waiting for a new message.” EN: this denotes an architecture where the MQueues (storage) are located inside the accelerator’s own local memory. The accelerator accesses this storage by “polling” the memory addresses to check for new messages.)
Tork does not disclose “via the RDMA” for the processing system accessing the processing system storage in the same embodiment.However, In the motivation section of Tork’s paper, Tork discusses various GPU-centric server designs, one of which include “GPU-centric” system where the GPU performs RDMA operations itself to enable “higher performance in certain workloads” (Tork, Page 121).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the GPU-initiated RDMA capabilities into the GPU accessing the storage. The motivation for doing so would be to achieve higher performance in certain workloads and improve efficiency. Page 121, “whereas GPUrdma implements full support for RDMA verbs. These works show that the GPU-centric design enables higher performance in certain workloads, is more efficient and easier to program than the traditional CPU-driven approach discussed in §3.2.”
Claim 5
Tork in view of Titus teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Titus further teaches:
wherein the encoded data is video stream data generated by a video camera, (Para 130, “The video sensors 14 provide source video to the computer system 11 … Examples of a video sensor 14 include: a video camera…”) and wherein the encoded data is encoded using a video management system (VMS) application. (Para 76, “the video surveillance system… may be on a processing device … on board a video management device such as a digital video camera, network video server, DVR, or Network Video Recorder (NVR)” Para 77, “Block 222 represents a hardware platform housing the main components… The hardware platform may contain other components such as… a video encoder (block 224) that compresses raw digital video for video streaming or storage using any available compression scheme (JPEG, MJPEG, MPEG1…”)
before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Titus’s video data that’s encoded using a video management system into Tork’s processing system.
The motivation for doing so would be enable the processing system to ingest and analyze encoded video data and thus provide services to the end user. Para 73, “The system is capable of analyzing video data from live sources or from recorded media. … The system may be used to produce, for example, security or market research reports that can be tailored according to the needs of an operator…“
Claim 6
Tork in view of Titus teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Titus further teaches:
wherein the metadata comprises timestamps for the video stream data. (Para 202, “The event discriminator checks all video primitives being generated according to FIG. 5 and determines if any video primitives exist which have the following properties: a timestamp between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.”)
before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Titus’s timestamps data into Tork’s processing system.
The motivation for doing so would be to enable efficient analysis on the data. Page 232, “The video content can be reanalyzed with the additional embodiment in a relatively short time because only the video primitives are reviewed and because the video source is not reprocessed. This provides a great efficiency improvement over current state-of-the-art systems.”
Claim 7
Tork in view of Titus teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Tork further teaches:
wherein the enhanced networking interface comprises: a network interface card, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and (…). (Page 123, “Implementation We prototype Lynx using two SNICs: Mellanox Bluefield with ARM cores and Mellanox Innova Flex with an FPGA (see §2 for details))
Tork does not disclose “a data processing unit” in the same embodiment.
However, Tork discloses “a data processing unit” in a different embodiment. (Page 119, “Processor-based SNIC … Figure 2b shows the architecture of the Mellanox Bluefield SNIC we use in this paper. It features eight 64-bit ARM A72 cores running at 800 MHz, connected to the NIC ASIC and to the host via an internal PCIe switch.” EN: Tork discloses the Mellanox BlueField SmartNIC comprising ARM processors and FPGA. These components process data packets and application messages, therefore this reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a data processing unit”.)
Tork discloses two architectures of an enhanced networking interface (Page 119, “In this paper we use two SNIC architectures:”. EN: Tork denotes the two architectures: Innova Flex comprises a generic Network Interface card (NIC) combined with an FPGA and Bluefield comprises a generic NIC combined with a DPU (Arm cores) (read section 2 background on page 119 for more details.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the FPGA-based networking interface (Innova) to include the data processing unit (ARM cores) from Bluefield.
The motivation for doing so would be to efficiently handle accelerator management tasks using specialized cores, thereby freeing up the main host processor. Page 118, “At the same time, specialized SNIC cores, which are less efficient for general purpose computations, are sufficient to drive hardware-accelerated network services with negligible performance cost.”
Claim 8
Tork teaches: A method for managing hardware resources, comprising: (Lynx runs on the SNIC and serves requests from clients via TCP/UDP. It manages accelerators connected via PCIe in the same server and via RDMA-capable NICs in other servers.)
The rest of claim 8 recite identical limitations to method claim 1. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 9-14
Claims 9-14 are method claims that recite the same limitations of claims 2-7, therefore, claims 9-14 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2-7.
Claim 15
Titus teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium (Para 42, “A "computer-readable medium" may refer to any storage device used for storing data accessible by a computer. Examples of a computer-readable medium may include: a magnetic hard disk; a floppy disk; an optical disk…”) comprising computer readable program code, (Para 129, “. A computer system 11 comprises a computer 12 having a computer-readable medium 13 embodying software to operate the computer 12 according to the invention.) which when executed by a computer processor enables the computer processor (Para 40, “A "computer" may refer to one or more apparatus and/or one or more systems that are capable of accepting a structured input, processing the structured input according to prescribed rules, and producing results of the processing as output.”) to perform a method for managing information handling systems, the method comprising: (Abstract, “A video surveillance system is set up, calibrated, tasked, and operated. The system extracts video primitives and extracts event occurrences from the video primitives using event discriminators. The extracted video primitives and event occurrences may be used to create and define additional video analytic rules. The system can undertake a response, such as an alarm, based on extracted event occurrences.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the work of Tork and Titus in order to use non-transitory computer hardware to run their system.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow the system to be “capable of processing the video data” (para 73, Titus).
The rest of claim 15 recite identical limitations to method claim 1. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16-20
Claim 16-20 are non-transitory computer readable medium claims that recite the same limitations as claim 2-5 and 7. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2-5 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. For example, Zou et al. (US 10972768 B2) discusses an edge-computing architecture of how processing occurs near the data source (camera) rather than in a remote, centralized cloud, which reduces latency. It also discusses performing visual computing tasks such as inferencing on video data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAYMUR RAHMAN ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30-5 pm.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/NAYMUR RAHMAN ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2123
/ALEXEY SHMATOV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2123