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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. No claims have been amended or canceled. Any examiner’s note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant’s response.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority (IN202241041844) on 07/21/2022. However, no certified copy of the foreign application has been received from the Applicant.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures, and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may also apply. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha et al. (US 20220283834 A1) hereafter Saha in view of Gray et al. (US 20190158428 A1) hereafter Gray, further in view of Cummings (US 20180368007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saha teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions (Paragraphs 54-55; “the computer-readable medium can include a solid-state memory such as a memory card or other package that houses one or more non-volatile read-only memories”, a solid-state memory corresponding to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. “The term “computer-readable medium” shall also include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying a set of instructions for execution by a processor”);
enable a passthrough between a virtual machine and a device (Paragraph 33; “device 240 is passed through to virtual machine 210 using passthrough 245 and thus is considered a passthrough device of virtual machine 210”, in which the passthrough mechanism requires configuration of the system such that the device is assigned to and accessible by the virtual machine, which requires establishes the passthrough that is disclosed as being in effect, thereby enabling passthrough between a virtual machine and the device.);
wherein the device is installed to a host device (Paragraphs 32; “Device 240 may be a device that is not included in the SDL of supported devices by a manufacturer of information handling system 205, such as a third-party device installed by a user. Devices that are in the SDL list may have been tested by the manufacturer and are supported, such as these devices can be monitored and/or managed via management controller 250 and/or remote management controller 275.”, the host device corresponding to the device housing IHS 205 which functions as the host.);
receive, through the device, an update command comprising instructions to update a system comprising the virtual machine (Paragraph 22; where the device receives the firmware updates via the VMC/device network interface mechanism, which contains a firmware update package functioning as the system instruction set, the update payload directing operations corresponding to the instructions, thus teaching receiving and applying system level updates via a management controller.);
transmitting updates through the passthrough (Paragraphs 22, 33; “BMC 190 includes a network interface 194 that can be connected to a remote management system to receive firmware updates, as needed or desired. Here, BMC 190 receives the firmware updates, stores the updates to a data storage device associated with the BMC, transfers the firmware updates to NV-RAM of the device or system that is the subject of the firmware update”. Paragraph 33 further discloses the use of a passthrough, “Passthrough 245 allows devices to appear and behave as if they were physically attached to the guest operating system. This removes the latency of the virtual machine to physical device communication which improves the performance of the virtual machine. In the example of FIG. 1, device 240 is passed through to virtual machine 210 using passthrough 245 and thus is considered a passthrough device of virtual machine 210. This means that virtual machine 220 can directly access device 240 without the involvement of hypervisor 230”.).
While Saha implies a control plane, Saha does not explicitly teach a control plane; the passthrough being enabled using a DPU management hypervisor; or the device is a DPU.
However, Gray teaches:
a control plane (Paragraph 58, element 66; ”control plane 66” explicitly discloses a control plane.);
a data processing unit (DPU) (Paragraph 58, element 60; “DPU 60” explicitly discloses a DPU.), the passthrough being enabled using a DPU management hypervisor executed by a DPU device (Paragraph 58; “the control plane software stack includes a hypervisor 80”, teaching a hypervisor within the DPU control plane architecture. “DPU 60 also includes a multi-tasking control plane operating system executing on one or more of the plurality of processing cores”, and the control plane stack includes hypervisor 80, which teaches execution of the hypervisor and control plane stack on DPU resources, thereby executing on the DPU device.);
receive, through the DPU device, a control plane update command (Paragraphs 58-59; “control plane service agents 84” performing “set up and tear down of software structures” which teaches a control plane on the DPU that receives information used to modify operational software structures and packet flow configuration, corresponding to a control plane update command received through the DPU.);
control plane data that is used to implement the control plane update command (Paragraphs 58-59; “Control plane service agents 84 executing on control plane OS 82 represent application-level software configured to perform set up and tear down of software structures to support work unit processing performed by the software functions executing on data plane OS 62” and “control plane service agents 84 are configured to set up the packet flow for data packet processing by the software function on data plane OS 62, and tear down the packet flow once the packet processing is complete”, which teaches configuration information used to define control behavior. The control plane is actively configured as evidenced from the setup/teardown of structures. Configuration changes modify system behavior as evidenced by packet flow. Therefore, control plane state is dynamically changed. An update command is a mechanism that triggers those changes, those changes occurring within the control plane. Therefore, the update command corresponds to the triggering mechanism for the setup/teardown operations.).
Saha and Gray are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine request routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saha to incorporate the teachings of Gray and implement the control plane functionality of Gray as a VM in the passthrough environment of Saha. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the use of VMs to be a known method in the art whose implementation would yield the predictable result of providing improved isolation and manageability of the control plane functionality while permitting direct access to the DPU via passthrough. Further, it would have been obvious to implement the control plane functionality of Gray as a virtual machine managed by the hypervisor of Gray and to access the DPU using the passthrough mechanism of Saha because virtualization of OS functions and hypervisor-managed device assignment are known methods in the art yielding the predictable result of pursuing established virtualization objectives by providing isolated control plane execution while maintaining access to DPU resources. The control plane service agents of Gray are configured to setup and tear down software structures and packet flows. Applied on the control plane, those configuration operations involve updating the state of the control plane, thereby corresponding to an implementation of control plane update operations.
Saha in view of Gray does not teach a control plane update command.
However, Cummings teaches:
perform the control plane update command (Paragraph 269; “It is still possible for the three on-line conductors to become compromised at the same time—either directly or through some kind of ransom-ware attack. For this reason a fourth conductor is kept physically disconnected from any network and in an inactive state. It periodically “wakes up” and connects. Before it does any mirroring, it performs behavioral analysis on the other three conductors. If it finds that the other three conductors have been compromised, it removes them from service and assumes control. In so doing, it takes the conductor/orchestrator network back to a state that it was in previous to the attack. Then the system (with the involvement of the SOC if it was previously involved in the change of state) updates itself”, where the conductor system that manages orchestrators corresponds to the applicant’s control plane).
Saha, Gray, and Cummings are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine request routing in orchestration systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Saha in view of Gray with Cummings to perform the control plane update command. Motivation to do so would come from the intention to maintain security, stability, and performance of a system by ensuring control planes are kept up to date, to introduce new features to the control plane, and to address vulnerabilities in data plane components.
Claim 8 contains similar limitations as those of claim 1, directed towards a system, additionally comprising at least one processor and a data store comprising executable instructions. Saha teaches:
a processor (Paragraph 12; “FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of an information handling system 100 including processors 102 and 104”);
and a data store comprising executable instructions (Paragraph 53; “a computer-readable medium that includes instructions or receives and executes instructions responsive to a propagated signal; so that a device connected to a network can communicate voice, video, or data over the network. Further, the instructions may be transmitted or received over the network via the network interface device.”, the computer-readable medium being disclosed as possibly including “a solid-state memory such as a memory card or other package that houses one or more non-volatile read-only memories” in Paragraph 55, corresponding to the data store.).
Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Claim 15 contains similar as those of claim 1, directed towards a method. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Saha teaches:
wherein the passthrough is enabled (Paragraph 33; “passthrough 245 allows devices to appear and behave as if physically attached to the guest operating system”, which teaches a system-level passthrough mechanism that is activated to permit device to VM attachment to enable passthrough operations by configurating the virtualization environment such that device access bypasses traditional mediation, thereby corresponding to enabling a passthrough because the passthrough functionality is made operative within the system to establish direct device accessibility.) using a management hypervisor executed by the host device (Paragraph 33; “passthrough 245 allows devices to appear and behave as if physically attached to the guest operating system... device 240 is passed through to virtual machine 210”, in which the passthrough architecture operates within the host virtualization framework controlling VM device assignment, thereby corresponding to a management hypervisor executed by the host device.).
Gray teaches:
DPU management hypervisor of the DPU device (Paragraph 58; “hypervisor 80 executing on DPU 60 control plane stack”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the known method of utilizing a passthrough mechanism of Saha with the DPU-based control plane hypervisor architecture of Gray in order to yield the predictable result of improving system efficiency and reducing communication latency between host-side virtual machines and DPU control plane functionality.
Claim 9 contains similar limitations as those of claim 2, directed towards a system. Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Claim 16 contains similar limitations as those of claim 2, directed towards a method. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Saha in view of Gray, in view of Cummings teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Cummings teaches:
wherein the control plane update command comprises an in-place update command for the control plane virtual machine to install a software update for at least one component of the control plane virtual machine (Paragraph 93; “Conductor 212 is configured to create and configure orchestrators 210, 211, 214. Configuration includes providing and updating algorithms, objectives and constraints to the orchestrators. Constraints include the definition of parameters of the component the orchestrator is associated with such that that component's local data model can be translated into the data schema (e.g., Umbrella Model) used internally by the orchestrator/conductor network, and the protocol to connect to that component. The Umbrella Model is a superset of all the data models of all the devices/systems within the span of control of the conductor/orchestrator (108, 120, 104, 102, 116 in the realization shown in FIG. 2). In order to achieve this, each local data model has to be translated to/from the Umbrella Model. Each orchestrator does this corresponding translation. Because software upgrades to existing devices can result in changes in local data models and adding new devices can result in the addition of new data models, it is necessary that the Umbrella Model and the local translators in the orchestrators be able to change while the overall conductor/orchestrator system is running”, where the conductor, corresponding to the applicant’s control plane virtual machine, updates data in the orchestrator, corresponding to the applicant’s updating, while running corresponds to the applicant’s in-place update).
Claim 12 contains the same limitations as those of claim 5, directed towards a system. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Claim 19 contains the same limitations as those of claim 5, directed towards a method. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings, further in view of Shah et al. (US 20160232019 A1) hereafter Jain.
Regarding claim 3, Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2. Saha teaches:
a management hypervisor (Paragraph 33; “passthrough 245 allows devices to appear and behave as if they were physically attached to the guest operating system... without requiring mediation by the hypervisor”, in which Saha discloses a hypervisor in a virtualization environment that controls VM operation and device assignment, including enabling passthrough functionality. This hypervisor therefore corresponds to a management hypervisor because it provides system-level control over virtualization resources.);
a passthrough (Paragraph 33; “device 240 is passed through to virtual machine 210 using passthrough 245 and thus is considered a passthrough device of virtual machine 210”).
Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings does not explicitly teach routing the control plane data around a virtual switch.
However, Shah teaches:
routing the control plane data around a virtual switch (Paragraph 13; “The NIC may provide virtual functions to virtual machines thereby bypassing the virtual switch” and “the NIC may access flow configuration and management parameters stored at a virtual switch or hypervisor and apply the flow configuration and management parameters to virtual functions that bypass the virtual switch and/or hypervisor” teaches that configuration and management parameters, corresponding to control plane data, are provided to virtual functions that bypass the virtual switch, thereby routing the control plane data around the virtual switch.).
Saha, Gray, Cummings, and Shah are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine request routing in orchestration systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings to incorporate the teachings of Shah and have the passthrough route the control plane data around a virtual switch. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the expected benefits of improved network performance and a reduction in latency associated with implementing the known method of routing around the virtual switch, yielding the predictable result of reducing virtualization overhead.
Claim 10 contains similar limitations as those of claim 3, directed towards a system. Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Claim 17 contains similar limitations as those of claim 3, directed towards a method. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings, further in view of Dutta et al. (US 20220124181 A1) hereafter Dutta.
Regarding claim 4, Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings does not teach wherein the passthrough comprises a single root I/O virtualization (SR-IOV) passthrough.
However, Dutta teaches:
wherein the passthrough comprises a single root I/O virtualization (SR-IOV) passthrough (Paragraph 83; “For optimal performance, the NICs assigned to the router are directly controlled by the router (e.g., Single Root Input/Output Virtualization (SR-IOV), Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)-Passthrough, or the like) without requiring any mediation by the hypervisor.”).
Saha, Gray, Cummings, and Dutta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine request routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings to incorporate the teachings of Dutta and have the passthrough comprise a SR-IOV passthrough. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the disclosure of Dutta explicitly saying that the direct implementation of SR-IOV and the like is made “for optimal performance” (Paragraph 83) of the system.
Claim 11 contains the same limitations as those of claim 4, directed towards a system. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Claim 18 contains the same limitations as those of claim 4, directed towards a method. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings, further in view of Skalecki et al. (US 20130007230 A1) hereafter Skalecki.
Regarding claim 6, Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Gray teaches:
a control plane (Paragraph 58, element 66; ”control plane 66” explicitly discloses a control plane.)
Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings does not teach the control plane update command comprising a migration update command to replace the control plane with an updated control plane.
However, Skalecki teaches:
wherein the control plane update command comprises a migration update command to replace the control plane virtual machine with an updated control plane virtual machine (Paragraph 29; “At a first step (at S18), a CP-to-MP migration is executed to remove existing Control Plane connection state (defined under the original CPNS-v1) and transfer ownership of all the corresponding Transport Plane connections to the Management Plane 8. In some embodiments, this CP-to-MP migration may follow a standard migration process, such as, for example, as defined under RFC 5852”, where CP-to-MP migration corresponds to the applicant’s migration update command to replace the control plane).
Saha, Gray, Cummings, and Skalecki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings with Skalecki to have a command to replace the control plane virtual machine with an updated control plane virtual machine. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the known method of replacement updates, yielding the predictable result of upgrading of the control plane, facilitating control plane lifecycle management, and following system resiliency design patterns.
Claim 13 contains the same limitations as those of claim 6, directed towards a system. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Claim 20 contains the same limitations as those of claim 6, directed towards a method. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Saha in view of Gray, further in view of Cummings, further in view of Skalecki teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 6. Saha teaches:
routing through the passthrough (Paragraph 33; “device 240 is passed through to virtual machine 210 using passthrough 245 and thus is considered a passthrough device of virtual machine 210”).
Skalecki teaches:
launch the updated control plane virtual machine (Paragraph 29; “Following completion of the CP-to-MP migration at S18 for all connections, a new version of the Control Plane Name Space (referred to as CPNS-v2) is defined (at step S20), and, at step S22, either pushed to nodes of the network or, equivalently, pushed to a server (not shown) configured to host a respective Optical Connection Controller (OCC) 14 for each involved node”, where the new definition of the control plane name space pushed to nodes of the network or server corresponds to the applicant’s updated control plane virtual machine);
and delete the control plane virtual machine once control is transferred to the updated control plane virtual machine (Paragraphs 29-30; “At a first step (at S18), a CP-to-MP migration is executed to remove existing Control Plane connection state (defined under the original CPNS-v1) and transfer ownership of all the corresponding Transport Plane connections to the Management Plane 8”, corresponding to the applicant’s check for control transfer, and “At a next step the original CPNS-v1 is removed (at S24), so that each OCC 14 has only the new CPNS-v2 stored in memory”, removal corresponding to the applicant’s deletion of the control plane).
Claim 14 contains the same limitations as those of claim 7, directed towards a system. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are summarized below:
The rejections of claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are traversed due to Warkentin not qualifying as prior art.
Dependent claims are submitted as allowable for at least the above reasons.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Saha, Gray, and Cummings, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 remain rejected for the reasons stated above. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, because the dependent claims depend from an unpatentable claim and does not add limitations that overcome the rejection, it likewise remains rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herdrich et al. (US 20210117244 A1) discusses node reallocation and rerouting of application requests through a core, defined as an IPU or DPU, to better serve end users. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 4:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. PT, F 4:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 4:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. PT, F 4:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/KENNETH P TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights