DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on June 30, 2023 in which claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination (after preliminary amendment of June 30, 2023).
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 17 are in independent form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 17, the ‘means for accessing’ is found in the specification to be the offload engine driver ([0078]) of the client device.
In claim 17, the ‘means for selecting’ is found in the specification to be RPC offload circuitry 150, which includes server selection circuitry 260 ([0047]).
In claim 17, the ‘means for causing’ is found in the specification to be network interface circuitry ([0050]).
In claim 18, the ‘means for performing’ is found in the specification to be load analyzer circuitry ([0041]).
In claim 19, ‘the means for selecting’ again refers to RPC offload circuitry 150, which includes server selection circuitry 260 ([0047]).
In claim 20, ‘the means for performing’ again refers to load analyzer circuitry ([0041]).
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.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., U.S. Patent Application 2005/0027862 (hereinafter referred to as Nguyen) in view of Chiu et al., U.S. Patent Application 2003/0145230 (hereinafter referred to as Chiu).
Referring to claim 1, Nguyen discloses “An infrastructure processing unit (IPU)” (Fig. 2 host computer(s) 12) “network interface circuitry” (Figs. 1B, 2 and [0037] a networked computer system enterprise, [0044] “In response to a network request, a PEM component 42.sub.1-X selects a discrete target server 44 for the processing of the request and transmits the request through the IP switch 16 to the selected target server 44”); and “offload circuitry” (Fig. 2 PEM component 42 and [0043] "A PEM component 421-X is preferably installed and executed on each of the host computers 121-X to functionally intercept and selectively process network requests directed to any local and core data stores 14, 30. In summary, the PEM components 421-X selectively forward specific requests in individual transactions to target servers 441-Y within the security processor cluster 18 for policy evaluation and, as appropriate, further servicing to enable completion of the network requests. In forwarding the requests, the PEM components 421-X preferably operate autonomously") “to: select a destination to perform an operation” ([0064] The selection of the target server 44 is performed by the PEM control layer 82 based on configuration and dynamically collected performance information), “the destination selected based on an ability of the destination to perform the operation” ([0065] – [0066] selecting of a target server based on load, weight, and latency); “and cause communication of the operation to the destination via the network interface circuitry” ([0044] “In response to a network request, a PEM component 42.sub.1-X selects a discrete target server 44 for the processing of the request and transmits the request through the IP switch 16 to the selected target server 44”).
Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “An infrastructure processing unit (IPU) comprising: an offload engine driver to access a remote procedure call (RPC) from business logic circuitry”, “RPC offload circuitry” to “select a destination to perform an operation associated with the RPC call, the destination selected based on an ability of the destination to perform the operation using remote direct memory access (RDMA).”
However, Chiu discloses another network system and includes “an offload engine driver to access a remote procedure call (RPC) from business logic circuitry” ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers), “a destination to perform an operation associated with the RPC call” ([0011] server 240 file access and data transfer in response to RDMA. Fig. 4 server 185 receives remote procedure call over RDMA), and determining “an ability of the destination to perform the operation using remote direct memory access (RDMA)” ([0013] and [0015] high speed file access technology NFS over RDMA. taking advantage of RDMA-capable interconnects. Figs. 4 and 5 along with [0036] - [0037] RDMA interconnect 420 bypasses UDP 170 and TCP 175 transport layers. Also, Fig. 6 and [0045] “The RPC bundles the arguments passed to it, creates a session with the appropriate server, and send[s] a datagram to a process on the server that can execute the RPC”).
As for “RPC offload circuitry,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having Nguyen and Chiu before him or her to modify Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 2, Nguyen discloses the “offload circuitry is to select the destination to perform the operation associated with the” request “based on a load analysis of a plurality of destinations capable of performing the operation” (Fig. 2 PEM component 42 and [0043] "A PEM component 421-X is preferably installed and executed on each of the host computers 121-X to functionally intercept and selectively process network requests directed to any local and core data stores 14, 30. In summary, the PEM components 421-X selectively forward specific requests in individual transactions to target servers 441-Y within the security processor cluster 18 for policy evaluation and, as appropriate, further servicing to enable completion of the network requests. In forwarding the requests, the PEM components 421-X preferably operate autonomously")
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry” and “the RPC call.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 3, Nguyen discloses “to perform the load analysis, the” “offload circuitry is to: identify the plurality of destinations capable of performing the operation; and determine at least one of a current or a future workload on the destinations” ([0064] – [0069] “The selection of the target server 44 is performed by the PEM control layer 82 based on configuration and dynamically collected performance information”).
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 4, Nguyen discloses “to perform the load analysis, the” “offload circuitry is to eliminate destinations with a heavy current or future workload from the plurality of destinations” ([0058] "A threshold of, for example, 95% load capacity can be set to define when subsequent network requests are to be refused." [0064] The selection of the target server 44 is performed by the PEM control layer 82 based on configuration and dynamically collected performance information. [0072] "the network request is rejected if the current load or weight values exceed the configuration established threshold load and weight limits applicable to the target server").
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 5, Nguyen discloses “to perform the load analysis, the” “offload circuitry is to identify low latency paths for performing the operation based on at least one of the current or the future workload on the plurality of destinations” ([0066] "A network latency table 90 is preferably utilized to store dynamic evaluations of network conditions between the PEM control layer 82 and each of the target servers 441-Y." "The network latency table 90 may also be utilized to store timestamped values representing the response latency times and communications cost of the various target servers 441-Y. These values may be evaluated in conjunction with the weight values as part of the process of determining and ordering of the target servers 441-Y for receipt of new network requests").
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 6, Nguyen discloses “to perform the load analysis, the” “offload circuitry is to: apply a latency threshold to the identified low latency paths; and eliminate destinations from the plurality of destinations that exceed the latency threshold” ([0071] “A target server response timeout period is set concurrently with the transmission 130 of the network request. On the occurrence of a response timeout 132, the specific target server 44 is marked in the network latency table 90 as down or otherwise non-responsive 134”).
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 7, Nguyen discloses “the” “offload circuitry is to calculate a score for respective ones of the plurality of destinations, the score to weigh which destination is likely to be selected for performing the operation” ([0065] Using a hierarchical nearest match algorithm, this stored dynamic information allows a PEM component 421-X to rapidly establish an ordered list several target servers 441-Y that are both least loaded and most likely to accept a particular network request).
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 8, Nguyen discloses “the” “offload circuitry is to apply a score threshold to the calculated score for the respective ones of the plurality of destinations” ([0060] appropriateness for use of a particular target server 44 relative to a particular a network request and associated access attributes. A preclusive value, defined as any value above a defined threshold such as 90, is returned as an implicit signal to a PEM component 421-X that corresponding network requests are not to be directed to the specific target server 44 except under exigent circumstances).
As above, Nguyen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the RPC offload circuitry.”
However, Chiu discloses RPC calls ([0037] (Network File System) "NFS layer 140 makes a call to XDR/RPC layer to invoke a Remote Procedure Call" and [0039] drivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Chiu’s RPC calls with the features of Nguyen so that the network requests include RPCs.
Nguyen and Chiu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is client/server network communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nguyen and Chiu before him or her, to modify the teachings of Nguyen to include the teachings of Chiu so that a remote procedure call is used for remote communications and selecting a destination includes selecting a server that has the ability to perform the operation using RDMA.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for high performance remote communication with significant throughput improvement and reduce CPU overhead over the existing transports (as described by Chiu at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chiu with Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 9, claim 1 recites the corresponding limitations as that of claim 9. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Further, Nguyen/Chiu discloses “A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause an infrastructure processing unit (IPU) to at least” operate as in claim 1 (Nguyen [0069] control program. Chiu claim 16 and [0032] memory storing instructions).
Note, claim 10 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 10.
Note, claim 11 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 11.
Note, claim 12 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 12.
Note, claim 13 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies to claim 13.
Note, claim 14 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 6. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 applies to claim 14.
Note, claim 15 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 7. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 applies to claim 15.
Note, claim 16 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 8. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 applies to claim 16.
Referring to claim 17, claim 1 recites the corresponding limitations as that of claim 17. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 17.
Note, claim 18 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 18.
Note, claim 19 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 19.
Note, claim 20 recites the corresponding limitations of claims 3 and 5 – 7. Therefore, the rejections of claims 3 and 5 – 7 apply to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application 20210224171 teaches storage systems utilizing RPCs and RDMA to receive and handle requests.
U.S. Patent Application 20230342212 teaches managing load distribution in a storage system utilizing RPCs and RDMA.
U.S. Patent Application 20230342221 teaches load scheduling in a storage system utilizing RPCs and RDMA.
U.S. Patent Application 20160357702 teaches RDMA-based RPC requests between networked computers.
U.S. Patent Application 20220350543 and 20220350544 teach an offload component for storing data in distributed memory and communications using RPC transactions on transport layers capable of RDMA.
Machine Translation of Chinese Patent Application CN 107948215 A teaches a load balancing policy for remote procedure calls (RPCs).
Lazarev et al., ‘Dagger: Efficient and Fast RPCs in Cloud Microservices with Near-Memory Reconfigurable NICs’ teaches RDMA hardware to offload network processing to specialized adapters and using RPCs.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN G SNYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm (flexible).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights