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 .
Detail Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/08/2026 has been entered.
This is a Non-Final Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p2-p3, filed 02/08/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
35 USC § 102-103
Applicant's arguments filed 02/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that that Graham fails to teach “multi-step aggregation procedure… a given process receives at least a first data buffer destined to the given process itself and a second data buffer destined to the given process itself and a second data buffer destined to a destination process different from the given process, which the given process forwards to the destination process at the next step.”
Specifically, Applicant argued that Graham’s MAC is not a computing process and itself is never receive a message for which MAC it self is the “destination process,”
Examiner disagrees:
Graham teaches this limitation because Graham cheches incoming message against multiple destinations and store the message in separate circuits/ buffers. (see Graham p0056:” The flowchart starts at a Get-Next-Message step 302, wherein the Message Classifier receives a message from Packet Processing circuit 120 (FIG. 1). The message specifies a destination to which the message should be sent. The Message Classifier then, in a Check-if-Aggregation-Circuit-Exists, checks if the destination ID of one of aggregation circuits 202 (FIG. 2) matches the specified destination. If so, the Message Classifier enters an Add-Message step 306, and sends the message to the corresponding Aggregation Circuit.”) Every check against each existing destinations can be considered as an individual step. (see Graham p0056) If messages destination does not exist in the circuits, and an aggregation circuit is free for the new messages destination. (see Graham fig. 3,) And this process can be considered as a step. (See Graham fig. 3)
Furthermore Graham’s MAC comprise a processor/ a Message Classifier 200 that classifies messages according to destinations. See Graham Fig. 2, item 200, p0050. Finally, although MAC is never the destination of the message, the destination of the message determines which aggressions circuit/ buffer the message is stored in, before it leaves for its final destination. See Graham Fig 2-3, p0050-p0062.
Therefore, Graham teaches this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Graham US Publication 2021/0218808.
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
18/074,563
Graham US Publication 2021/0218808
Claim 1
A method for collective communications, comprising:
Graham abstract
invoking a collective operation over a group of computing processes in which the processes in the group concurrently transmit and receive data messages to and from other processes in the group via a communication medium;
Graham p0004, p0005-p0015
detecting by the processes respective sizes of the data messages;
Graham p0050-62
transmitting the data messages for which the respective sizes are greater than a predefined threshold to respective destination processes in the group without aggregation; and
Graham p0056-62
aggregating the data messages for which the respective sizes are less than the predefined threshold in a multi-step aggregation procedure and transmitting the aggregated data messages to the respective destination processes.
Graham p0056-73
Wherein at least a first step, each given process receives at least a first data buffer destined to the given process and a second data buffer destined to a destination process different from the given process, and in at least a second step, subsequent to the first step, the given process forwards the second data buffer to the destination process.
Graham p0056-73
As per claims 10 and 19, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
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 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Parkinson et al. 2008/0059499.
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
18/074,563
Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Parkinson et al. 2008/0059499
Claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein aggregating the data messages comprises dividing the group into sub- groups, and aggregating the data messages within each sub-group.
Graham abstract
Parkinson teaches divide messages into different groups. (see Parkinson p0021-p0024)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Parkinson’s teaching with method of claim Graham in order to "unpacking" the query elements from their serialized transmission form; validating that messages are in the correct form; assigning priorities and enqueueing the requests; and "packing," possibly encrypting, and transmitting responses.
Claim 3
The method according to claim 2, wherein dividing the group into sub-groups comprises defining a static division of the group into the sub-groups.
Parkinson teaches divide messages into different groups by IP address. (see Parkinson p0021-p0024)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Parkinson’s teaching with method of claim Graham in order to classify messages based on geographic location.
Claim 5
The method according to claim 2, wherein aggregating the data messages comprises dividing each sub-group into sub-blocks according to the respective destination processes to which the data messages are destined, and aggregating the sub-blocks within each sub-group.
Parkinson teaches divide messages into different groups by IP address. (see Parkinson p0021-p0024)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Parkinson’s teaching with method of claim Graham in order to classify messages based on geographic location.
As per claims 11, 12, and 14; 20, 21, and 23, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2-3 and 5. See rejection above.
Claims 4, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Parkinson et al. 2008/0059499 and Hans US 2023/0401116.
18/074,563
Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Parkinson et al. US 2008/0059499 and Hans US 2023/0401116
Claim 4
The method according to claim 2, wherein dividing the group into sub-groups comprises defining the sub-groups in response to an order of arrival of the data messages from the processes in the group.
Hans teaches group message by time received. Hans p0089
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Han’s teaching with method of claim Graham in order to group message by chronological order.
As per claims 13 and 22, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See rejection above.
Claims 6-8, 15-17, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Jea US 2014/0282613.
18/074,563
Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Jea US 2014/0282613
Claim 6
The method according to claim 1, wherein aggregating the data messages comprises performing a multi-step aggregation procedure, with radix k>2, such that in at least a first step, any given process receives at least a first data buffer destined to the given process and a second data buffer destined to a destination process different from the given process, and in at least a second step, subsequent to the first step, the given process forwards the second data buffer to the destination process.
Graham Fig. 4 item 408 or item 412; It is noted that 408 and 412 are multi-step aggregation and 402 is set destination step.
Jea teaches an iteration counter that is compare to a predetermined threshold. (see Jea p0103) and It is noted that 2 is arbitrary number.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Jea’s teaching with method of claim Graham in order to maximus RAM efficiency.
Claim 7
The method according to claim 6, wherein in the second step, the given process aggregates data from a local buffer of the given process that is destined to the destination process together with the second data buffer, and transmits the aggregated data in a single transmission to the destination process.
Graham Fig. 4 item 408 or item 412; It is noted that 408 and 412 are multi-step aggregation and 402 is set destination step.
Claim 8
The method according to claim 6, wherein in at least the first step, the given process transmits at least first and second local buffers respectively to first and second processes within the group, and in at least the second step, the given process transmits at least third and fourth local buffers respectively to third and fourth processes within the group, which are different from the first and second processes.
Graham In alternative embodiments, for example, there is no Egress Queue, and the MAC sends the aggregated messages directly to buffers in the Packet Processing circuit. (see Graham Fig. 1, item 120) In an embodiment, Message Classifier 200 and/or Aggregation Control circuit 204 are distributed in the Aggregation Circuits. See Grahamp0055, and p0056
As per claims 15-17, and 24-26, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 6-8. See rejection above.
Claims 9, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view Graham’733 US Publication 2020/0274733.
18/074,563
Graham US Publication 2021/0218808 in view of Graham’733 US Publication 2020/0274733
Claim 9
The method according to claim 1, wherein invoking the collective operation comprises initiating an all-to-all-v, all-to-all-w, all-gather-v, gather-v, or scatter-v operation.
Graham’733 teaches using all-to-all and all-to-all-v/w algorithm. See Graham’733 p0046.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Graham’733’s teaching with method of claim Graham in optimizing the small data exchange.
As per claims 18 and 27, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 9. See rejection above.
Related References
Here is a list of reference related to message management system:
Xie US Publication 20250193310: Communication system node Having multiple
modules and a shared memory.
Wu US Publication 2023/0292149: Adaptive UE Capability message compaction.
Bensberg US 11609934: Notification frame work for document store.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights