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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 and 6 are difficult to read due to the size of the figures and the fact that the words did not all fully scan properly making them difficult to make out.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain the phrase “…to release a lock on associated with the hash table…” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGPub 2019/0102346, hereafter referred to as Wang) in view of Bodas et al. (US PGPub 2004/0117600, hereafter referred toa s Bodas) in view of Park (US PGPub 2019/0303468).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an apparatus, comprising: a processor to comprise a cache memory (Paragraph [0033], shows the processors can have internal caches), and a cache memory to comprise circuitry for a hash accelerator (Paragraph [0022] and [0037], shows accelerator circuitry in a last level cache that can perform hashing operations). Since Wang teaches both a processor with a cache and a cache with accelerator circuitry it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Wang to also have accelerator circuitry in the processor’s cache to obtain the predictable result of having the cache memory comprise circuitry for a hash accelerator. Wang does not teach the circuitry for the hash accelerator to: receive a query from the processor, the query to comprise an input key and an operation to be performed based on a hash table to be stored in the cache memory, determine whether an entry associated with the input key exists in a lock board of the hash accelerator, and process the query based on whether the entry exists in the lock board.
Bodas teaches the circuitry to: receive a query from the processor (Paragraphs [0053]-[0056], that a lookup instruction can be received from the processor), the query to comprise an input key and an operation to be performed based on a hash table to be stored in the cache memory (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0007]-[0009], show the structure of a query which includes an input key and section defining the operation to be performed. Paragraphs [0053]-[0056], shows the query then uses a hash table stored in the memory to perform the lookup). Since both Wang and Bodas teach the use of hash tables it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Wang to use the queries of Bodas to obtain the predictable result of the circuitry for the hash accelerator to: receive a query from the processor, the query to comprise an input key and an operation to be performed based on a hash table to be stored in the cache memory (as all this does is specify who the query is from and the structure of the query itself).
Park teaches determine whether an entry associated with the input key exists in a lock board (Abstract and Paragraph [0033], describe the use of a lock table (lock board) that uses an indexes to associate a lock with a particular database element), and process the query based on whether the entry exists in the lock board (Paragraph [0047]-[0051], describe the process of performing a lock on a table that is specified in a query). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang and Bodas to use the locking method of Park so the lock management is provided in a manner that is fast and efficient, and that conserves processing, memory, and other computational resources (Park, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is the method claim associated with claim 1. Since Wang, Bodas, and Park teach all the limitations of claim 1, they also teach all the limitations of claim 8; therefore the rejection to claim 1 also applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 1. Since Wang, Bodas, and Park teach all the limitations of claim 1, they also teach all the limitations of claim 15; therefore the rejection to claim 1 also applies to claim 15.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bodas, and Park as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US Patent 11,520,769, hereafter referred to as Zheng).
Regarding claim 2, Wang, Bodas, and Park teach all the limitations to claim 1. Wang, Bodas, and Park do not teach the circuitry for the hash accelerator to: determine the entry associated with the input key exists in the lock board, wherein the entry is associated with another query, and refrain from processing the query until processing of the another query completes, the completion of the processing of the another query to release a lock on associated with the hash table to permit the query to be processed.
Zheng teaches determine the entry associated with the input key exists, wherein the entry is associated with another query, and refrain from processing the query until processing of the another query completes, the completion of the processing of the another query to release a lock on associated with the hash table to permit the query to be processed (Col. 11, lines 40-46, states that if another query has already acquired a desired lock the new query will be placed in a suspension queue and wait for the lock to become available (the other query to release the lock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang, Bodas, and Park to utilize the locking methods of Zheng sot that system performance may be improved in multi-requester transaction processing from the applications by supporting concurrent and efficient processing of multiple requests (Zheng, Col. 1, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is the method claim associated with claim 2. Since Wang, Bodas, Park, and Zheng teach all the limitations of claim 2, they also teach all the limitations of claim 9; therefore the rejection to claim 2 also applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 2. Since Wang, Bodas, Park, and Zheng teach all the limitations of claim 2, they also teach all the limitations of claim 16; therefore the rejection to claim 2 also applies to claim 16.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bodas, and Park as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Foreign Patent CN 114116727, hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claim 7, Wang, Bodas, and Park teach all the limitations to claim 1. Bodas further teaches wherein the operation is to comprise a lookup operation in the hash table based on the input key or an insert operation to insert the input key in the hash table (Paragraphs [0053]-[0056], as stated in the rejection to claim 1). Wang, Bodas, and Park do not teach wherein the operation to be based at least in part on a cuckoo hashing algorithm.
Li teaches wherein the operation to be based at least in part on a cuckoo hashing algorithm (Paragraph [0011] (Contents of the Invention), states the purpose is to optimize a cuckoo hash index). Since both Wang/Bodas/Park and Li teach the use of hashing algorithms it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hash algorithm of Wang, Bodas, and Park with that of Li to obtain the predictable result of wherein the operation to be based at least in part on a cuckoo hashing algorithm.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is the method claim associated with claim 7. Since Wang, Bodas, Park, and Li teach all the limitations of claim 7, they also teach all the limitations of claim 14; therefore the rejection to claim 7 also applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 7. Since Wang, Bodas, Park, and Li teach all the limitations of claim 7, they also teach all the limitations of claim 20; therefore the rejection to claim 7 also applies to claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132