DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0121473, hereinafter “Gong”).
4. As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Gong teaches a system for a high-speed (HS) data network, and method, comprising: a switch (paragraph 197, EP switch, figure 6) to receive a communication (paragraphs 3 and 4) from a source host machine (310, figure 3) to access a memory space (323, figure 3, paragraph 136) of a destination host machine (320, figure 3), the communication comprising a request (paragraphs 189 and 190, request, figure 5) associated with memory access protocols of the memory space of the destination host machine (protocols read/write/atomic, paragraph 47, 292, and 303), and to provide the communication to the destination host machine to enable subsequent communications from the source host machine that are based in part on the memory access protocols received in response to the request (based on determined protocol handles the request, paragraph 189, via the driver 800, figure 8, paragraphs 264 – 267, along the path, figure 9, paragraphs 284 – 286).
5. As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Gong teaches a system and method, wherein the memory access protocols define read, write, and atomic capabilities associated with the memory space of the destination host machine (protocols read/write/atomic, paragraph 47, 292, and 303).
6. As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Gong teaches a system and method, wherein the communication further comprises a request header attribute, an address extension attribute, and one or more of a byte enable or data attribute (address handling, paragraphs 93 – 95).
7 As per claims 7 and 14, Gong teaches a system and method, wherein the switch is further to comprise a map of destination identifiers (mapping from host 430 to 440, figure 4, paragraph 172 via emulator) that comprise the destination host machine and a group of egress ports associated with the destination host machine (endpoint connectivity via ports physical and virtual PF0 and VF1…4, figure 4 PCIe).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3 – 5, 10 – 12, 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.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1.) the prior art does not teach a switch and rather teaches a pass through element, 2) the prior art does not teach memory access protocols of the memory space of the destination machine
With respect to argument 1, the Examiner disagrees. The limitation of the verbiage switch is seen in light of the claim limitations which does not preclude the prior art from functioning as necessitated by the claims. The claim switch is seen to be a device that directs communication versus a changing mechanism as seen in the arguments. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structural/algorithmic components of switch that may toggle between a plurality of scenarios or configurations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Elaborating on the switching configurations would better enhance compact prosecution over the cited prior art.
With respect to argument 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art teaches as the Applicant has stated dirty page data synchronization with has been interpreted with respect to the DMA operations as a memory access protocol for the destination address space in a manner where the claim limitations do not preclude the prior art from functioning as necessitated. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Characterization of the access protocol would better enhance compact prosecution over the cited prior art. The Examiner has also cited additional allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AURANGZEB HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM to 3 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
AH
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights