DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/31/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not perfected priority. Therefore, effective filing date of application is 10/23/2023.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-8 are method claims reciting contingent limitations, and thus not all steps are required to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method steps; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “determining a message queue update status of the virtual network card or the virtual disk; the determining comprising obtaining a first value of an available space of the message queue at a first moment and obtaining a second value of the available space of the message queue at a second moment that is after the first moment; and determining whether the virtual machine is currently in an internal abnormal state or a normal operating state based on whether the first value of the available space is same as the second value of the available space” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “virtual network card or a virtual disk of a virtual machine” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “obtaining a message queue of a virtual network card or a virtual disk of a virtual machine, the message queue being obtained by performing reading at a virtual memory address of the virtual network card or the virtual disk in a virtual machine emulator that emulates the virtual machine on a host” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because the element is regarding data gathering and applying the method for execution, thus is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity, thus not practical application under prong 2. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “virtual network card or a virtual disk of a virtual machine” are merely a generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements “obtaining a message queue of a virtual network card or a virtual disk of a virtual machine, the message queue being obtained by performing reading at a virtual memory address of the virtual network card or the virtual disk in a virtual machine emulator that emulates the virtual machine on a host ” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are essentially regarding data gathering and applying method for execution. Under step 2B, the courts have identified data gathering as well understood routine and conventional. See MEPE 2106.05d.
Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “wherein determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on the message queue update status includes: obtaining a first value of an available space of a message sending queue of the virtual network card at a first moment; obtaining a second value of the available space at a second moment that is after the first moment; and determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on whether the first value is same as the second value.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on the message queue update status includes: in response to the message queue update status being a continuous update state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the normal operating state; and in response to the message queue update status being a non-continuous update state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein, in response to the message queue update status being the non-continuous update state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state, includes: in response to a message receiving queue of the virtual network card being in a continuous overflow state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 4. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on the message queue update status includes: obtaining a first value of an available space of the message receiving queue and a first value of a used space of the message receiving queue at a first moment; obtaining a second value of the available space and a second value of the used space at a second moment after the first moment; and determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on whether the first value of the available space is same as the second value of the available space and whether the first value of the used space is same as the second value of the used space.”
This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 5. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein, determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on whether the first value of the available space is same as the second value of the available space and whether the first value of the used space is same as the second value of the used space includes: in response to the first value of the available space being different from the second value of the available space, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the normal operating state; and in response to the first value of the available space being same as the second value of the available space and the first value of the used space being same as the second value of the used space, determining the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements ” wherein determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on the message queue update status includes: obtaining a first value of an available space of a message request queue of the virtual disk at a first moment; obtaining a second value of the available space at a second moment after the first moment; and determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on whether the first value is same as the second value.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements ”wherein obtaining the message queue of the virtual network card or the virtual disk of the virtual machine includes: obtaining a virtual device list in a virtual machine emulator corresponding to the virtual machine, the virtual device list at least including the virtual network card or the virtual disk; obtaining a virtual memory address of the virtual network card or the virtual disk in the virtual device list; performing reading at the virtual memory address to obtain the message queue of the virtual network card or the virtual disk.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 9, is an independent device claim and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – An electronic device comprising: a memory storing a program; and a processor configured to execute the program--. The electronic device, memory and processor-- is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device, memory, and processor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 -16, are dependent product claims corresponding to 2-8, respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabev et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0183723) in view of Chapell (U.S. PG PUB 2006/0239194)
Regarding claim 1, Sabev teaches a virtual machine status determination method comprising: obtaining a message queue (See ¶[0032] “The “for start” executor 144 takes a message from the “for start” queue 120 and triggers the creation of a new VM of a specific type (for example, availability, zone, or size) (1.0a). When the triggering completes successfully, the “for start” executor 144 sends a new message to the starting queue 126 (2.0a). If the creation of the new virtual machine fails, the message is placed back into the “for star” queue 120 (2.1a). After the operation of creating the VM is triggered, the starting executor 150 takes the new message (that is, a VM that is undergoing the “starting” state) from the starting queue 126, based on the content of the message. The starting executor 150 also checks if the VM actually starts (3.0a). If the VM has successfully started, the VM is placed into a proper storage queue 112 (4.0a). If not, the new message is returned back to the starting queue 126 (4.1a).”)
of a virtual network card or a virtual disk of a virtual machine (see ¶[0013] “An IaaS provider can host infrastructure components (such as, servers, storage, network hardware, and a virtualization layer) and supply a range of services. An IaaS customer, by using the IaaS provider's services, can install remaining elements of an application stack (for example, by logging into the IaaS platform to create VMs).” See ¶ [0032] “The IaaS 108 is the underlying infrastructure provider. Task executors 136 running inside the VM polling service nodes 106 communicates with the IaaS platform 110 to maintain the VM pools 108.”);
determining a message queue update status of the virtual network card or the virtual disk (see ¶[0025] “The target state queues 118 also include three types of queues: 1) the starting queue 126, 2) the rebooting queue 128, and 3) the terminating queue 130. Each message contained in the target state queue 118 represents a VM that is in a transition state (that is, starting (or so-called creating), rebooting, or terminating). The operations that put each VM in such states are performed by the IaaS platform. A VM is realistically not usable while an operation (such as, create, reboot, or terminate) is being performed on the VM, so the VM is kept in the state transition queue.”); and
determining whether the virtual machine is currently in an internal abnormal state or a normal operating state (see ¶[0025] “In some implementations, timeouts can be configured that define a maximum amount of the time that a VM can remain in each one of the transitioning states (create and reboot). Where the transition state is terminate, a VM remains in the terminating queue until it is properly terminated. If there is a failure of termination functionality, the continued presence of the VM in the terminating queue can be indicative of an abnormal condition. In such implementations, a termination queue monitor can be used to send an alert(s) when VMs are queued up in the terminating queue to the point that some action needs to be taken.”).
Sabev does not expressly disclose, however Chapell teaches
the message queue being obtained by performing reading at a virtual memory address of the virtual network card or the virtual disk in a virtual machine emulator that emulates the virtual machine on a host (see ¶[0055] “In one implementation capacity manager 116 monitors VC queue capacities in VC receive queues 610A-D by reading the update VC FC DLLPs transmitted by inbound packet director 605 Capacity manager 116 may then compare the available space in a given VC receive queue to one or more other VC receive queues.”);
the determining comprising obtaining a first value of an available space of the message queue at a first moment and obtaining a second value of the available space of the message queue at a second moment that is after the first moment (see ¶ [0023] “These features monitor available space in a VC queue for a communication link, compare the available space in the VC queue to available space in one or more other VC queues for the communication link and communicate the determined available space to an arbiter.”);
based on whether the first value of the available space is same as the second value of the available space (see ¶[0025] “According to one example, memory 230 is used by monitor engine 210 to temporarily store information related to the monitoring of and the comparison of available space in a VC queue. Memory 230 may also store executable content. The executable content may be used by control logic 220 to implement an instance of monitor engine 210.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Sabev’s determining the state of VM by adapting Chapell’s comparing values of available space in order determine differences of the states. Comparing values is a known technique to determine the differences and combining these elements would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Sabev does not expressly disclose, however, Chapell teaches the message queue is a message sending queue of the virtual network (see ¶[0059] “In one implementation, if monitoring available space in VC receive queues 610A-D, credit feature 212 reads the VC queue credit fields of an update VC FC DLLP transmitted by inbound packet director 605.”).
Regarding claim 3, Sabev teaches wherein determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on the message queue update status includes: in response to the message queue update status being a continuous update state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the normal operating state (see ¶[0024] “In some implementations, each message in the “for start” queue 120 represents a request for the creation of a new VM. In some implementations, each message in the “for reboot” queue 122 represents a VM that needs to be rebooted. In some implementations, each message in the “for terminate” queue 124 represents a VM that needs, and is scheduled, to be terminated.”); and in response to the message queue update status being a non-continuous update state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state (see ¶[0025] “If there is a failure of termination functionality, the continued presence of the VM in the terminating queue can be indicative of an abnormal condition. In such implementations, a termination queue monitor can be used to send an alert(s) when VMs are queued up in the terminating queue to the point that some action needs to be taken.”).
Regarding claim 4, Sabev teaches wherein, in response to the message queue update status being the non-continuous update state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state, includes: in response to a message receiving queue of the virtual network card being in a continuous overflow state, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state (see ¶[0025] “If there is a failure of termination functionality, the continued presence of the VM in the terminating queue can be indicative of an abnormal condition. In such implementations, a termination queue monitor can be used to send an alert(s) when VMs are queued up in the terminating queue to the point that some action needs to be taken.”).
Regarding claim 9, is an independent product claim corresponding to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, teaches an electronic device comprising: a memory storing a program; and a processor configured to execute the program.
Regarding claims 11-12, correspond with claims 3-4, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabev et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0183723) in view of Chapell (U.S. PG PUB 2006/0239194), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Starovic et al. (U.S. Patent 6,625,751).
Regarding claim 5, Sabev teaches wherein determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on the message queue update status (see ¶[0025] “In some implementations, timeouts can be configured that define a maximum amount of the time that a VM can remain in each one of the transitioning states (create and reboot). Where the transition state is terminate, a VM remains in the terminating queue until it is properly terminated. If there is a failure of termination functionality, the continued presence of the VM in the terminating queue can be indicative of an abnormal condition. In such implementations, a termination queue monitor can be used to send an alert(s) when VMs are queued up in the terminating queue to the point that some action needs to be taken.”), however, Starovic teaches includes: obtaining a first value of an available space of the message receiving queue and a first value of a used space of the message receiving queue at a first moment; obtaining a second value of the available space and a second value of the used space at a second moment; and determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state based on whether the first value of the available space is same as the second value of the available space and whether the first value of the used space is same as the second value of the used space (see col. 18, lines 66-767 to col. 19 lines 1-10 “FIG. 7 represents the primary VM replica processing of an asynchronous output action. In step S71, comparison of the value to be output is effected for faster failure detection, if required for a specific action. The comparison requires that the primary and backup replica VMs exchange their output values”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Sabev and Chapell by adapting the specific ways of failure detection using values and comparison of Starovic to determine an abnormal state (see col. 18, lines 66-767 to col. 19 lines 1-10 of Starovic).
Regarding claim 6, Sabev teaches wherein, determining whether the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state or the normal operating state (see ¶[0025] “In some implementations, timeouts can be configured that define a maximum amount of the time that a VM can remain in each one of the transitioning states (create and reboot). Where the transition state is terminate, a VM remains in the terminating queue until it is properly terminated. If there is a failure of termination functionality, the continued presence of the VM in the terminating queue can be indicative of an abnormal condition. In such implementations, a termination queue monitor can be used to send an alert(s) when VMs are queued up in the terminating queue to the point that some action needs to be taken.”), however, Starovic teaches based on whether the first value of the available space is same as the second value of the available space and whether the first value of the used space is same as the second value of the used space includes: in response to the first value of the available space being different from the second value of the available space, determining that the virtual machine is currently in the normal operating state (see col. 15, lines 15-25, “The state of a VM replica consists of the values assigned to all of its variables; the values may be stored in registers, memory, or on a disk. A part of the state may be "virtual", that is be mapped to different values from the original values when these were obtained from the VM environment. Such virtualised values can be exchanged directly between the replicas (in order to keep the replicas consistent); replicas with the virtual state will still satisfy the internal consistency requirement. This can be used for example, to implement virtual file and process identifiers. Both replicas must be able to translate from virtual values to their corresponding local values.”); and in response to the first value of the available space being same as the second value of the available space and the first value of the used space being same as the second value of the used space, determining the virtual machine is currently in the internal abnormal state (see col. 18, lines 66-767 to col. 19 lines 1-10 “FIG. 7 represents the primary VM replica processing of an asynchronous output action. In step S71, comparison of the value to be output is effected for faster failure detection, if required for a specific action. The comparison requires that the primary and backup replica VMs exchange their output values”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings Sabev and Chapell by adapting the specific ways of failure detection using values and comparison of Starovic to determine an abnormal state (see col. 18, lines 66-767 to col. 19 lines 1-10 of Starovic).
Regarding claim 7, Sabev teaches wherein the message queue is a message request queue of the virtual disk (see ¶[0042] “In some implementations, the first state transition queue contains a number of messages. If the to-be-performed operation is to create a new VM, the first message represents a request to create the new VM. In some implementations, the pool maintainer sends the first message by sending the request to create a new VM to the first state transition queue.”).
Regarding claims 10, 13, 14, 15, correspond with claims 2, 5, 6, and 7, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabev et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0183723) and Chapell (U.S. PG PUB 2006/0239194), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Patel et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2022/0006701).
Regarding claim 8, Sabev does not expressly disclose, however Patel teaches wherein obtaining the message queue of the virtual network card or the virtual disk of the virtual machine includes: obtaining a virtual device list in the virtual machine emulator corresponding to the virtual machine, the virtual device list at least including the virtual network card or the virtual disk (see ¶[0246] “For example, after accessing a list of devices (physical devices and/or virtual devices) included in a particular computer network ").
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Sabev and Chapell by adapting Patel to provide significant improvements to efficiency (see ¶[0003] of Patel).
Regarding claim 16, correspond with claim 8, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 issues, applicants state that amended claim is patent eligible because it is not a judicial exception as the claim integrates into a practical application. Applicants assert that the claim improves the manner in which a computer detects the operating status of a virtual machine which is an improvement to the functioning of a computer and the technical field of virtual machine management. Applicant argues that reading a virtual memory address at a virtual memory address in the virtual emulator is not data gathering.
Examiner disagrees. The newly cited claim amendments of determining step are just additional steps of the judicial exception and are still an abstract idea. The additional limitation regarding the obtaining a message from a queue, and further description of said queue acquiring message from a virtual memory address is still regarded as data gathering and applying the method for execution, thus is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the newly added limitations are neither a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding 103 issues, applicant changed the scope of the claims, and examiner added new prior art. Therefore, arguments are moot.
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu (U.S. PG PUB 2018/0321879) teaches processing a read/write request in a physical machine, where the method includes polling, by a host by accessing memory of at least one of virtual storage devices, at least one instruction transmit queue of the at least one virtual storage device in order to obtain a first read/write request from the at least one instruction transmit queue, performing a first forwarding operation on the first read/write request, and obtaining, by the host, another first read/write request from the at least one instruction transmit queue by polling such that the host performs the first forwarding operation on the other first read/write request. According to the method and the apparatus in embodiments of the present disclosure, a speed of processing a read/write request in a virtualization storage scenario can be increased.
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 CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights