DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks pp. 10-13) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
1. The applicant argues that neither the combination of He and Lofstrand, nor Yasukawa, nor any of the other references used in the rejection teaches “receiving test information,” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Yasukawa does teach “receiving test information” (
Yasukawa discloses, “The input part 141 receives topology information and delay information of the network. The minimum delay path calculation part 142 calculates minimum delay paths from a source node to each destination node by using the topology information and the delay information,” ¶ 0081, “The rendezvous point node selection part 145 selects a candidate node, as the rendezvous point node, of which the calculated difference is smallest,” ¶ 0081, “The information management part 21 manages information of delay or cost that arises in nodes and links in the network. The measurement part 22 measures delay or cost arises in itself,” ¶ 0083, and “The measurement part 22 includes a measurement module for measuring status of the network interfaces 243 and information such as delay of each node on the network. The packet process part 24 includes a packet process module 241, a packet transfer table storing part 242 for storing transfer destination of packets, and network interfaces 243,” ¶ 0084.
The disclosed “delay information of the network” is the empirical data measured for a node, before wider/later use of the network; and the topology information is used to digest and integrate empirical data before wider/later use of a specific node.
This teaching is consistent with the definition of the word “test”, which, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.” Thus, the delay information is determined in order to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of the network before transmissions.).
2. The applicant argues that neither the combination of He and Lofstrand, nor Yasukawa, nor any of the other references used in the rejection teaches “receiving test information from a service application,” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Lofstrand does teach that a client is a “service application” (
Lofstrand discloses, “The method also includes providing a content switch in the computer network (such as on a network device exposed to an external network and/or service clients that provide requests including service access IP (e.g., a service name and the like)), and a node controller is provided or loaded for the content switch,” ¶ 0008, and “In another service workflow example (e.g., stratus), the content switch is implemented as a distributed system where the client for the service is an application on the same IP stack as the content switch,” ¶ 0036.
The disclosed “service client” provides requests including service access IP, and said service client is an application on the same IP stack as the content switch.).
After He in view of Lofstrand is combined with Yasukawa, the test information as taught by Yasukawa is received from a service application as taught by Lofstrand.
3. The applicant argues that neither the combination of He and Lofstrand, nor Yasukawa, nor any of the other references used in the rejection teaches “determining processing delays of the one or more virtual devices using the test information; and selecting a preferred virtual device corresponding to a minimum processing delay from the one or more virtual devices based on the processing delays” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Yasukawa does “determining processing delays of the one or more virtual devices using the test information” and “selecting a preferred virtual device corresponding to a minimum processing delay from the one or more virtual devices based on the processing delays” (
Yasukawa discloses, “The input part 141 receives topology information and delay information of the network. The minimum delay path calculation part 142 calculates minimum delay paths from a source node to each destination node by using the topology information and the delay information,” ¶ 0081, “The rendezvous point node selection part 145 selects a candidate node, as the rendezvous point node, of which the calculated difference is smallest,” ¶ 0081, “The information management part 21 manages information of delay or cost that arises in nodes and links in the network. The measurement part 22 measures delay or cost arises in itself,” ¶ 0083, and “The measurement part 22 includes a measurement module for measuring status of the network interfaces 243 and information such as delay of each node on the network. The packet process part 24 includes a packet process module 241, a packet transfer table storing part 242 for storing transfer destination of packets, and network interfaces 243,” ¶ 0084.
The calculations of the minimum delay paths using the topology information and delay information are also considered to be a “determination” of “processing delays”.
Furthermore, transmitting information through a path can be considered processing, and the processing delay is the time it takes to travel through the path.
After the combination of He in view of Lofstrand, with Yasukawa, the testing information used to calculate the delay information, in Yasukawa, is received from a service application as specified by He in view of Lofstrand, and the candidate nodes are represented by virtual devices.).
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, 3, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111431980 A) in view of Lofstrand (US 20110158088 A1) and Yasukawa (US 20040218536 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, He teaches a method implemented by computing device for bonding (associating) a plurality of physical devices (He’s network cards) into a virtual device (He’s VIP [Virtual IP]), the method comprising:
creating a plurality of physical device sets (He’s VIPGroup1 and VIPGroup2) based on the plurality of physical devices (He’s network cards), wherein at least two of the plurality of physical device sets comprise a same physical device (
PNG
media_image1.png
222
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
He discloses, “In the example of FIG. 2, the VIPGroup1 has two VIP, two physical network card, two VIP (VIP1 and VIP2) simultaneously with two network cards providing service, can provide a better network bandwidth, VIPGroup2 with a VIP, two physical network card. the solid line in the figure on the VIP represents physical network card of the present binding, dashed line allows binding of physical network card (i.e., VIP binding may be selected in any one of the two physical network card, and FIG. VIP1 present binding physical network card 1),” Page 4.
He also discloses, “FIG. 3 is a diagram of another alternative distributed storage system according to the embodiment of the invention, the cluster environment for available network card is few, it can also support on a single sheet of card configured plurality of VIP group, between VIPGroup1 and VIPGroup2 do not affect each other, the combination shown in FIG. 3, VIPGroup1 has VIP1 and VIP2, VIPGroup2 with VIP3, gateway 1 is only provided with the physical network card 1, the gateway 2 is only provided with a physical network card 2. but VIP1, VIP2 and VIP3 are respectively bound to physical network card 1 physical network card 2 allows,” Page 4.
Here, VIPGroup1 has virtual IPs VIP1 and VIP2, both of which are capable of using both physical network cards 1 and 2. Meanwhile, VIPGroup2 has virtual IP VIP3, which is also capable of using both physical network cards 1 and 2. Thus, both of these VIP groups have the option to bind physical network cards 1 and 2.
As demonstrated, both VIPGroup1 and VIPGroup2 comprise a same physical device: physical network card 1 or 2.);
creating, for a physical device set of the plurality of physical device sets, one or more virtual devices corresponding to the physical device set (
He discloses, “thereby, the above embodiments of the invention enable virtual IP, the access path of the client end has a corresponding set of virtual IP, virtual IP group comprises at least one virtual IP, one virtual IP allows drift in the plurality of physical network card, when deploying a physical network card of the gateway device receives the access request from the client, according to the access request through the gateway device accessing the target storage volume corresponding to the client,” Page 5.
He also discloses, “VIPGroup1 has VIP1 and VIP2, VIPGroup2 with VIP3, gateway 1 is only provided with the physical network card 1, . . . but VIP1, VIP2 and VIP3 are respectively bound to physical network card 1 physical network card 2 allows,” Page 4. Fig. 3.
The claimed creation of “one or more virtual devices” is mapped to the VIP Group(s), as the one or more virtual devices correspond to the physical device set (i.e., network cards 1 and 2).);
and receiving, using a preferred virtual device, data from a client (
He discloses, “gateway device 20, comprises a plurality of physical network card 30, and a plurality of physical network card is used for receiving an access request of the client, through the gateway device according to the access request to access the target storage volume corresponding to the access path,” Page 4.
Here, He teaches receiving data including “access request of the client”.).
He does not teach that a client is a service application. He does teach a client which is known in the art as an application/portal to access resources or services.
Lofstrand teaches that the client is a service application (
Lofstrand discloses, “The method also includes providing a content switch in the computer network (such as on a network device exposed to an external network and/or service clients that provide requests including service access IP (e.g., a service name and the like)), and a node controller is provided or loaded for the content switch,” ¶ 0008, and “In another service workflow example (e.g., stratus), the content switch is implemented as a distributed system where the client for the service is an application on the same IP stack as the content switch,” ¶ 0036.
The disclosed “service client” provides requests including service access IP, and said service client is an application on the same IP stack as the content switch.).
He and Lofstrand are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer networks. 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 He to incorporate the teachings of Lofstrand and provide that the client is a service application. Doing so would help provide services in an efficient and well-managed manner for a network (Lofstrand discloses, “The present description relates, in general, to providing services in an efficient and well-managed manner in via a network such as within or via a datacenter, and, more particularly, to methods and systems for providing a self-configuring content switch such as within a switch or access point to a pull-based computer system (e.g., a datacenter) used to provide services to clients,” ¶ 0002.).
He in view of Lofstrand does not teach receiving test information from a service application; determining processing delays of the one or more virtual devices using the test information; selecting a preferred virtual device corresponding to a minimum processing delay from the one or more virtual devices based on the processing delays.
However, Yasukawa teaches receiving test information from a service application; determining processing delays of the one or more virtual devices using the test information; (
Yasukawa discloses, “The input part 141 receives topology information and delay information of the network. The minimum delay path calculation part 142 calculates minimum delay paths from a source node to each destination node by using the topology information and the delay information,” ¶ 0081, “The rendezvous point node selection part 145 selects a candidate node, as the rendezvous point node, of which the calculated difference is smallest,” ¶ 0081, “The information management part 21 manages information of delay or cost that arises in nodes and links in the network. The measurement part 22 measures delay or cost arises in itself,” ¶ 0083, and “The measurement part 22 includes a measurement module for measuring status of the network interfaces 243 and information such as delay of each node on the network. The packet process part 24 includes a packet process module 241, a packet transfer table storing part 242 for storing transfer destination of packets, and network interfaces 243,” ¶ 0084.
The disclosed “delay information of the network” is the empirical data measured for a node, before wider/later use of the network; and the topology information is used to digest and integrate empirical data before wider/later use of a specific node.
This teaching is consistent with the definition of the word “test”, which, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.” Thus, the delay information is determined in order to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of the network before transmissions.
The calculations of the minimum delay paths using the topology information and delay information are also considered to be a “determination” of “processing delays”.
After the combination of He in view of Lofstrand with Yasukawa, the testing information used to calculate the delay information, in Yasukawa, is received from a service application as specified by He in view of Lofstrand.);
selecting a preferred virtual device corresponding to a minimum processing delay from the one or more virtual devices based on the processing delays (
Yasukawa discloses, “The rendezvous point node selection part 145 selects a candidate node, as the rendezvous point node, of which the calculated difference is smallest,” ¶ 0081.
After the combination of He in view of Lofstrand with Yasukawa, the candidate nodes are represented by virtual devices, so that a preferred virtual device is selected to have a smallest delay.).
He in view of Lofstrand, and Yasukawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer 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 He in view of Lofstrand to incorporate the teachings of Yasukawa and provide receiving test information from a service application; determining processing delays of the one or more virtual devices using the test information; selecting a preferred virtual device corresponding to a minimum processing delay from the one or more virtual devices based on the processing delays. Doing so would help increase efficiency of the overall process (Yasukawa discloses, “As mentioned above, according to the calculation method of this embodiment, multicast paths can be established in which delay variation can be suppressed while suppressing cost of the whole network. Thus, an efficient and high-performance multicast communication network can be constructed,” ¶ 0166).
Claim 10 and Claim 19 are a computer device claim and a computer program product claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 10 and Claim 19 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein creating the plurality of physical device sets comprises creating a first physical device set based on a first physical device and creating a second physical device set based on a second physical device, wherein the first physical device set and the second physical device set each comprise a primary device and at least one secondary device, wherein the primary device of the first physical device set is the first physical device, and wherein the primary device of the second physical device set is the second physical device (
He discloses “VIPGroup1 has VIP1 and VIP2, VIPGroup2 with VIP3, gateway 1 is only provided with the physical network card 1, the gateway 2 is only provided with a physical network card 2. but VIP1, VIP2 and VIP3 are respectively bound to physical network card 1 physical network card 2 allows. FIG. 3 VIP1 the current binding physical network card 1, when the port failure or node shutdown, it can be switched to the physical network card 2,” Page 5.
The claimed “first physical device” is mapped to physical network card 1, as it is the primary device for VIP1.
The claimed “second physical device” is mapped to physical network card 2, as it is the primary device for VIP2 and VIP3.
For VIP1, the physical network card 1 is the primary device as it is used by default; however, if the physical network card 1 fails, the physical network card 2 can be used instead, thus making the physical network card 2 the secondary device for VIP1. By contrast for VIP2 and VIP3, if physical network card 2 fails, the physical network card 1 can be used instead, thus making the physical network card 1 the secondary device for VIP2 and VIP3.).
Claim 12 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111431980 A) in view of Lofstrand (US 20110158088 A1), Yasukawa (US 20040218536 A1), and Moscirella (US 20080120177 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa teaches the method of claim 1. He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa does not teach wherein prior to creating the plurality of physical device sets, the method further comprises: prompting a user to input creation parameters of the physical device sets using an input interface.
However, Moscirella teaches wherein prior to creating the plurality of physical device sets, the method further comprises: prompting a user to input creation parameters of the physical device sets using an input interface (
Moscirella discloses, “At step 404, the priority of the device (MyPriority) is set equal to the priority assigned to the device by the operator,” ¶ 0029.
The claimed “creation parameters” is mapped to the disclosed “priority assigned to the device by the operator”.);
obtaining the creation parameters using the input interface (
Moscirella discloses, “…with virtual configurations that are obtained from a management system,” ¶ 0024.);
and further creating the plurality of physical device sets based on the plurality of physical devices and the creation parameters (
Moscirella discloses, “A set of devices forms a redundancy group. Each of the devices is initially configured either in an active role or a standby role with virtual configurations that are obtained from a management system,” ¶ 0024.
He already discloses “when any one node fault path migration is needed, because the virtual IP virtual IP group is allowed to drift in a plurality of physical network card, so multiple physical network card can be redundant, so as to switch the path between each other,” Page 4, and “In the example of FIG. 2, the VIPGroup1 has two VIP, two physical network card, two VIP (VIP1 and VIP2) simultaneously with two network cards providing service, can provide a better network bandwidth, VIPGroup2 with a VIP, two physical network card. the solid line in the figure on the VIP represents physical network card of the present binding, dashed line allows binding of physical network card (i.e., VIP binding may be selected in any one of the two physical network card, and FIG. VIP1 present binding physical network card 1),” Page 6. After He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa is combined with Moscirella, the VIP groups are configured based on the physical network cards and inputted configurations.).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa, and Moscirella are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer 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 He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa to incorporate the teachings of Moscirella and provide wherein prior to creating the plurality of physical device sets, the method further comprises: prompting a user to input creation parameters of the physical device sets using an input interface. Doing so would help allow flexibility in the creation of the physical device sets. Doing so would also help allow fault-tolerant redundancy for the physical device sets (Moscirella discloses, “FIG. 2 is a flow diagram depicting an exemplary embodiment of a method 200 of managing M:N redundancy in a fault-tolerant system in accordance with one or more aspects of the invention,” ¶ 0024.).
Claim 11 and Claim 20 are a computer device claim and a computer program product claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 11 and Claim 20 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111431980 A) in view of Lofstrand (US 20110158088 A1), Yasukawa (US 20040218536 A1), and Hasani (US 20190140958 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa teaches the method of claim 3, wherein creating the one or more virtual devices comprises:
creating a first virtual device based on the first physical device set (
He discloses, “thereby, the above embodiments of the invention enable virtual IP, the access path of the client end has a corresponding set of virtual IP, virtual IP group comprises at least one virtual IP, one virtual IP allows drift in the plurality of physical network card, when deploying a physical network card of the gateway device receives the access request from the client, according to the access request through the gateway device accessing the target storage volume corresponding to the client,” Page 5.
He also discloses, “VIPGroup1 has VIP1 and VIP2, VIPGroup2 with VIP3, gateway 1 is only provided with the physical network card 1, . . . but VIP1, VIP2 and VIP3 are respectively bound to physical network card 1 physical network card 2 allows,” Page 4. Fig. 3.
The claimed creation of “a first virtual device” is mapped to a VIP of a VIP Group, as the one virtual device correspond to a physical device of a physical device set (i.e., network card 1 or network card 2).).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa does not teach adjusting a correspondence between the first virtual device and the first physical device set when service traffic of the first physical device exceeds a first preset threshold, so that the first virtual device corresponds to the second physical device set.
However, Hasani teaches adjusting a correspondence between the first virtual device and the first physical device set when service traffic of the first physical device exceeds a first preset threshold, so that the first virtual device corresponds to the second physical device set (
Hasani discloses, “Embodiments are disclosed for a system to hierarchically orchestrate network traffic. Network traffic, such as data access requests in a social networking platform, are received by multiple device orchestration modules in a computer network and are forwarded to one or more downstream computing devices, such as a server computing device (“server”) that processes social network data,” ¶ 0011, “As mentioned above, the device orchestration module forwards network traffic from and/or to the servers using the routing nodes. Some routing nodes may be handling more network traffic load, e.g., a number of data access requests and/or responses to the requests, than the others,” ¶ 0013, and “For example, if the network orchestration module determines that the network traffic load at a specified device orchestration module exceeds a specified threshold, the network orchestration module may redirect at least some of the network traffic from the specified device orchestration module to one or more other device orchestration modules to balance the aggregate network traffic load between the device orchestration modules,” ¶ 0015.
PNG
media_image1.png
222
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
He also discloses, “. . . the combination shown in FIG. 3, VIPGroup1 has VIP1 and VIP2, VIPGroup2 with VIP3, gateway 1 is only provided with the physical network card 1, the gateway 2 is only provided with a physical network card 2. but VIP1, VIP2 and VIP3 are respectively bound to physical network card 1 physical network card 2 allows,” Page 4.
He discloses, in Fig. 3, a VIPGroup 1 having two physical network cards each connected to one of its VIPs (VIP1 and VIP2). After He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa is combined with Hasani, when one of the physical network cards (NIC1 under VIP1) is overloaded by traffic exceeding the threshold for that card, the other physical network card (NIC2 under VIP2) is also activated to share the load so that more of the load can be transferred through said other physical network card.
The claimed “correspondence between the first virtual device and the first physical device set” is mapped to the correspondence between VIPGroup 1 and VIP2, because VIP2 also belongs to VIPGroup 1).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa, and Hasani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer networks. 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 He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa to incorporate the teachings of Hasani and provide adjusting a correspondence between the first virtual device and the first physical device set when service traffic of the first physical device exceeds a first preset threshold, so that the first virtual device corresponds to the second physical device set. Doing so would help improve performance of the overall network (Hasani discloses, “Engaging multiple device level orchestration modules to perform specific tasks may allow for more robust performance of many network applications to create a more dynamic and efficient network,” ¶ 0018.).
Claim 13 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 4. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa teaches the method of claim 3, (
He discloses, “In one embodiment can be selected, the combination shown in FIG. 2, VIP1 of the VIPGroup1 may be bound to the physical network card 1 and physical network card 3, when the physical network card 1 fault, it can switch the path to the physical network card 3,” Page 5.).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa does not teach further comprising adjusting a flow direction of service traffic when the service traffic of the first physical device exceeds a second preset threshold, so that the first physical device set delivers the service traffic by using the second physical device.
However, Hasani teaches further comprising adjusting a flow direction of service traffic when the service traffic of the first physical device exceeds a second preset threshold, so that the first physical device set delivers the service traffic by using the second physical device (
Hasani discloses, “In some embodiments, the device orchestration module may determine a throughput of each routing node, e.g., an amount of data forwarding requests handled by the routing node, within the device orchestration module. If the device orchestration module determines that the throughput of the network traffic of a specified routing node exceeds a specified threshold, the device orchestration module may redirect the network traffic from the specified routing node to one or more other routing nodes within the device orchestration module, e.g., to a routing node whose throughput is less than the specified threshold,” ¶ 0013.).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa, and Hasani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer networks. 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 He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa to incorporate the teachings of Hasani and provide further comprising adjusting a flow direction of service traffic when the service traffic of the first physical device exceeds a second preset threshold, so that the first physical device set delivers the service traffic by using the second physical device. Doing so would help balance network traffic loads (Hasani discloses, “By performing the device-level orchestration, the device orchestration module may balance network traffic loads between each routing node within the device orchestration module,” ¶ 0013.).
Claim 14 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111431980 A) in view of Lofstrand (US 20110158088 A1), Yasukawa (US 20040218536 A1), Hasani (US 20190140958 A1), and Moscirella (US 20080120177 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, and Hasani teaches the method of claim 4. He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, and Hasani does not teach further comprising specifying, for any one of the plurality of physical device sets, a priority for each secondary device to become the primary device based on an affinity between the service application and each secondary device in the any one of the plurality of physical device sets.
However, Moscirella teaches further comprising specifying, for any one of the plurality of physical device sets, a priority (priority of the standby device) for each secondary device to become the primary device based on an affinity (heartbeat timeout interval) between the service application and each secondary device in the any one of the plurality of physical device sets (
Moscirella discloses “The heartbeat timeout interval varies for each standby device and is skewed based on the priority of the standby device. When a standby device first transitions to an active mode, it immediately transmits a heartbeat to prevent other standby devices from transitioning to an active mode. In the event that more than one standby device transitions to an active mode, the heartbeat message is also used to negotiate which device remains in an active mode. The device with the lower priority relinquishes the active role and reverts to a standby mode,” ¶ 0023.
The claimed “affinity” is associated with the ability to hear the “heartbeat” as disclosed.).
He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, and Hasani, and Moscirella are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer 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 He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, and Hasani to incorporate the teachings of Moscirella and provide further comprising specifying, for any one of the plurality of physical device sets, a priority for each secondary device to become the primary device based on an affinity between the service application and each secondary device in the any one of the plurality of physical device sets. Doing so would help allow easier reporting of a device failure if a priority value of zero is detected (Moscirella discloses, “As described above, a standby device also reports a virtual device failure when it receives a heartbeat with zero priority,” ¶ 0021.).
Claim 15 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, Hasani, and Moscirella teaches the method of claim 6, wherein specifying, the priority for each secondary device to become the primary device comprises specifying, based on one of a connection relationship between a processor corresponding to the service application and each secondary device, a size of an available resource of each secondary device or a size of a resource to be consumed for updating each secondary device to the primary device, the priority for each secondary device to become the primary device (
Moscirella discloses “The heartbeat timeout interval varies for each standby device and is skewed based on the priority of the standby device. When a standby device first transitions to an active mode, it immediately transmits a heartbeat to prevent other standby devices from transitioning to an active mode. In the event that more than one standby device transitions to an active mode, the heartbeat message is also used to negotiate which device remains in an active mode. The device with the lower priority relinquishes the active role and reverts to a standby mode,” ¶ 0023.).
He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, and Hasani, and Moscirella are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer 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 He in view of Lofstrand, Yasukawa, and Hasani to incorporate the teachings of Moscirella and provide wherein specifying, the priority for each secondary device to become the primary device comprises specifying, based on one of a connection relationship between a processor corresponding to the service application and each secondary device, a size of an available resource of each secondary device or a size of a resource to be consumed for updating each secondary device to the primary device, the priority for each secondary device to become the primary device. Doing so would help allow to select the most optimal secondary device to become a primary device (Moscirella discloses, “In the event that more than one standby device transitions to an active mode, the heartbeat message is also used to negotiate which device remains in an active mode. The device with the lower priority relinquishes the active role and reverts to a standby mode,” ¶ 0023.).
Claim 16 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111431980 A) in view of Lofstrand (US 20110158088 A1), Yasukawa (US 20040218536 A1), and Kirubakaran (US 20240220446 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa teaches the method of claim 1. He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa does not teach wherein the plurality of physical device sets comprises at least two different types of physical device, wherein the different types of physical device comprise a network interface card (NIC), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and an embedded neural-network processing unit (NPU).
However, Kirubakaran teaches wherein the plurality of physical device sets comprises at least two different types of physical device, wherein the different types of physical device comprise a network interface card (NIC), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and an embedded neural-network processing unit (NPU) (
Kirubakaran discloses “Processors 970, 980 may each exchange information with a network interface (NW I/F) 990 via individual interfaces 952, 954 using interface circuits 976, 994, 986, 998. The network interface 990 (e.g., one or more of an interconnect, bus, and/or fabric, and in some examples is a chipsct) may optionally exchange information with a coprocessor 938 via an interface circuit 992. In some examples, the coprocessor 938 is a special-purpose processor, such as, for example, a high-throughput processor, a network or communication processor, compression engine, graphics processor, general purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU), neural-network processing unit (NPU), embedded processor, or the like,” ¶ 0176, “Network interface 990 may be coupled to a first interface 916 via interface circuit 996,” ¶ 0178, and “In some examples, one or more additional processor(s) 915, such as coprocessors, high throughput many integrated core (MIC) processors, GPGPUs, accelerators (such as graphics accelerators or digital signal processing (DSP) units), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or any other processor, are coupled to first interface 916,” ¶ 0180.
The claimed “network interface card (NIC)” is mapped to the disclosed “network interface 990”, which can be a chipset.
The claimed “graphics processing unit (GPU)” is mapped to the disclosed “one or more additional processor(s) 915”, which can be a GPGPU (general-purpose GPU).
The claimed “embedded neural-network processing unit (NPU)” is mapped to the disclosed “coprocessor 938”, which can be a neural-network processing unit (NPU) and/or an embedded processor.).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa, and Kirubakaran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer 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 He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa to incorporate the teachings of Kirubakaran and provide wherein the plurality of physical device sets comprises at least two different types of physical device, wherein the different types of physical device comprise a network interface card (NIC), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and an embedded neural-network processing unit (NPU). Doing so would help increase flexibility of the overall setup of the physical device sets (Kirubakaran discloses, “Though the example system 900 is shown to have two processors, the system may have three or more processors, or may be a single processor system. In some examples, the computing system is a system on a chip (SoC),” ¶ 0174).
Claim 17 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 111431980 A) in view of Lofstrand (US 20110158088 A1), Yasukawa (US 20040218536 A1), and Hong (US 20150372484 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa teaches the method of claim 1. He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa does not teach the method further comprising specifying priorities of the one or more virtual devices, wherein resources of the one or more virtual devices are based on the priorities.
However, Hong teaches the method further comprising specifying priorities of the one or more virtual devices, wherein resources of the one or more virtual devices are based on the priorities (
Hong discloses “The resources are distributed to the devices based on the priority of devices which depends upon their characteristics and importance, as well as the stage in which they are operated,” ¶ 0037).
He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa, and Hong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer 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 He in view of Lofstrand and Yasukawa to incorporate the teachings of Hong and provide the method further comprising specifying priorities of the one or more virtual devices, wherein resources of the one or more virtual devices are based on the priorities. Doing so would help increase resource usage efficiency of the overall process (Hong discloses, “Accordingly, an aspect of the present invention is to maximize the resource usage efficiency with reducing the cost,” ¶ 0004).
Claim 18 is a computer device claim corresponding to the method Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoppert (US 20180189090 A1): Exposing Hardware Work Queues As Virtual Devices In Virtual Machines
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195