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 Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/9/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending and they are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claim 19) recite: “disable the network optimizations, maintaining, by the synthetic network adapter”.
Instant specification recites the following:
[PGPub paragraph 3], “Herein, “synthetic network adapter” refers to a component of the NetVSC of a VM or child partition, while “VM synthetic network adapter” refers to a component of the parent partition.”
[PGPub paragraph 15], “ During the modified fast save operation, a VM synthetic network adapter disables network optimizations, while maintaining allocation and assignment of a VF to the VM and maintaining a VPCI bus connection between a VF device (e.g., VF network adapter) and hardware resources of a host device. “
After careful search of the instant specification, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure wherein a synthetic network adapter disables the network optimizations. On the contrary, the specification explicitly recites having two distinct network adapters (synthetic network adapter and VM synthetic network adapter). VM synthetic network adapter is utilized to disable network optimizations. (emphasis added).
Claim 9 recite: “initializing a VM synthetic network adapter by reserving resources and initiating a power-on-restore function”.
Instant specification recites the following:
[PGPub paragraph 36], “With reference to the example data flow 300 of FIG. 3, VMWP 305 calls VM synthetic network adapter 310 to initialize (at operation 322), to start reserving resources (at operation 324), to finish reserving resources (at operation 326), and to initiate a power-on-restore function (at operation 328).”
[PGPub paragraph 36], “After initializing, reserving resources, and initiating the power-on-restore function, VM synthetic network adapter 310 restores a handle of a VM switch (at operation 330)”
Based on the above disclosure, initialization and reservation is two separate operations, thus initialization of VM synthetic network adapter is not caused by reservation of resources. The above recitation specifically states, “after initializing, reserving resources. Furthermore, after careful search of the instant specification, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure which would suggest reservation of resources causes initialization of VM synthetic network adapter.
Claims 2-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claim 19) recite: disable(ing) “the network optimizations”. The examiner is unclear of the term “network optimizations”.
The specification does not provide details on what would be considered network optimizations. The examiner is unable to determine/distinguish network optimizations vs. non-network optimizations. Therefore, since network optimizations are unclear, disabling network optimizations are also unclear.
Claim 9 recite: “reserving resources”. The limitation “resources” is ambiguous. The examiner is unclear if “resources” is referring to resources of VM synthetic network adapter, resources of processing system, network type resources, processing type resources, storage type resources, etc., and/or combination.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the synthetic network adapter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unclear what synthetic network adapter, the synthetic network adapter is referring to. Furthermore, since there is a clear distinction between a synthetic network adapter vs VM synthetic network adapter, the examiner is unclear which particular synthetic network adapter “the synthetic network adapter” is referring to.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "resume the synthetic network adapter". The examiner is unclear if “the synthetic network adapter” is the actual network adapter that is resumed. The claim recites “initiating tear down of a VM synthetic network adapter”… “initializing the VM synthetic network adapter”, therefore, the logic would continue to resume the VM synthetic network adapter not the synthetic network adapter.
Claims 2-8, 10-18 and 20 is/are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim.
Conclusion
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 DONG U KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1313. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 5712723338. 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.
/DONG U KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights