DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicants amendment filed 05/21/2026 which has been entered. Claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 12 and 20 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH et al (2021/0149836 A1) in view of Hammer et al (2013/0166703 A1).
As per Claims 1, 12 and 20, Shah teaches a computer network and method for network data communication, comprising: at an initiator subsystem, generating a data stream including a series of n transaction requests for delivery to two or more target subsystems via a network fabric (Figure 1 – References 102, 130, 132, 134 and 136; Page 1, Paragraph [0017]; Page 2, Paragraph [0019]; Page 4, Paragraph [0038]); at the initiator subsystem, transmitting each of the series of n transaction requests over the network fabric to the two or more target subsystems (Page 2, Paragraph [0019]).
(Note: In paragraph [0017], Shah describes an initiator subsystem [i.e. master] generating a data stream that is transmitted to two or more target subsystems [i.e. plurality of slaves] via a network fabric. Shah indicates transactions may be request transactions or response transaction and may be write requests and/or read requests. In paragraph [0019], Shah describes a network-on-chip [NoC – i.e. network fabric] shown in Figure 1)
Shah also teaches at an initiator aggregation controller communicatively coupled with the initiator subsystem, for a first (n – 1) transaction requests of the series of n transaction requests, transmitting (n – 1) preliminary request responses to the initiator subsystem (Page 2, Paragraphs [0020], [0021] and [0025] – Page 2, Paragraph [0027]).
(Note: In paragraph [0020], Shah describes a broadcast adapter [BA] connected to a request/response [i.e. transaction] network. In paragraphs [0021] and [0022], Shah describes the BA receiving and duplicating request transactions [i.e. data stream]. In paragraph [0027], Shah describes how on the response portion the BA performs response aggregation and combines all responses that correspond into one duplicate request packet into a single packet using a combination function which is then sent back through the BA. This effectively results the dropping of all the duplicate requests and the consolidating into one single response that transmitted)
Shah further teaches at the initiator aggregation controller, receiving, via the network fabric, target-specific aggregated responses to the data stream corresponding to each of the two or more target subsystems (Page 2, Paragraph [0025] – Page 2, Paragraph [0027]). (Note: In paragraph [0026], Shah indicates the NoC includes a special range of addresses that identifies BAs and standard address ranges for each target or slave. The duplicated transactions are sent by an initiating BA to a receiving BA which then sends the duplicated transaction to a specified target/slave device [i.e. receiving, via the network fabric, target-specific aggregated responses to the data stream corresponding to each of the two or more target subsystems)
Shah additionally teaches at the initiator aggregation controller, upon receiving the target-specific aggregated responses corresponding to each of the two or more target subsystems, transmitting an aggregated stream response to the initiator subsystem (Page 2, Paragraph [0025] – Page 2, Paragraph [0027]). (Note: Claim 20 differs from Claim 1 in that Claim 1 is an initiator subsystem while Claim 20 is directed to a target subsystem. Claim 1 is directed the transmission of requests; and Claim 20 is directed to the receipt of those transmitted requests)
Shah does not teach wherein the (n – 1) preliminary request responses are placeholder responses generated by the initiator aggregation controller. However, Hammer teaches wherein the (n – 1) preliminary request responses are placeholder responses generated by the initiator aggregation controller (Page 14, Paragraph [0135]; Page 16, Paragraphs [0177] and [0182]; Page 17, Paragraph [0187]).
(Note: In paragraph [0135], Hammer describes headers that include transaction identifiers tat are used to correlate requests with responses. In paragraph [0177], Hammer describes timers and/or counters used by proxies to implement protocols for managing services. In paragraph [0182], Hammer describes a Cancel-Timeout timer that starts after sending a request and reset after the receipt of a provision or final response which Hammer indicates may be a 100 TRYING [provisional response] or 200 OK [final response])
(Note: In paragraph [0187], Hammer describes a Retransmit-Timeout timer that defines a time period within a node must send a 100 TRYING response to acknowledge a request. In data communication networks, preliminary responses act as temporary “keep-alives” or acknowledgement placeholders. They hold connections open and inform the client of processing progress without timing out)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Shah with the method taught by Hammer to inform clients that their request is actively being processed which stops the originating device from endlessly retransmitting the initial request [e.g. re-sending an INVITE] which conserves bandwidth.
As per Claims 4 and 15, Shah teaches wherein the initiator aggregation controller includes two or more initiator adapters corresponding to two or more network ports over which the initiator subsystem transmits the series of n transaction requests as described in Claim 1.
As per Claims 7, 8, 18 and 19, Shah teaches dropping a first (n – 1) transaction responses generated by the target subsystem in response to the first n – 1 transaction requests of the series of n transaction requests; and upon receiving an nth transaction response from the target subsystem in response to an nth transaction request of the series of n transaction requests, transmitting a target-specific aggregated response to the initiator aggregation controller as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 10, Shah teaches wherein the initiator subsystem, the initiator aggregation controller, and the two or more target subsystems are implemented as subcomponents of a network-on-chip (NoC) system as described above.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH et al (2021/0149836 A1) in view of Hammer et al (2013/0166703 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of BRUCE et al (2018/0189097 A1).
As per Claims 2 and 13, the combination of Shah and Hammer teaches the method and computer network of Claims 1 and 12; but does not teach at the initiator subsystem, marking an nth transaction request of the series of n transaction requests as being a last transaction request of the data stream. However, Bruce teaches marking an nth transaction request of the series of n transaction requests as being a last transaction request of the data stream (Figure 9A – Reference 920; Page 6, Paragraph [0132]; Page 7, Paragraph [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and computer network taught by Shah and Hammer with the method and computer network taught by Bruce to combine multiple small responses into a single larger packet in an effort to reduce the overall amount of data as well as the number of packets to be transmitted thereby optimizing bandwidth usage.
As per Claims 3 and 14, the combination of Shah, Hammer and Bruce teaches transmitting a transaction quantity indication over the network fabric that indicates a quantity of the n transaction requests in the data stream. (Note: In paragraph [0057], Bruce describes transaction regulation being performed by a transaction issuing device. In paragraphs [0059] and [0064], Bruce indicates transaction limits may be adjusted based on the number of transactions compared to established threshold levels. In order to make a determination as to whether the system is in a healthy state a transaction quantity indication has to be utilized in order to be able to make a comparison to the threshold)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and computer network taught by Shah and Hammer with the method and computer network taught by Bruce to combine multiple small responses into a single larger packet in an effort to reduce the overall amount of data as well as the number of packets to be transmitted thereby optimizing bandwidth usage.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH et al (2021/0149836 A1) in view of Hammer et al (2013/0166703 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Das Sharma et al (2021/0119730 A1).
As per Claims 5 and 16, the combination of Shah and Hammer teaches the method and computer network of Claims 1 and 12; but does not teach wherein the initiator aggregation controller maintains a table corresponding to the data stream, the table including fields indicating whether target-specific aggregated responses have been received from each of the two or more target subsystems, and a field indicating whether an error was reported by the two or more target subsystems.
However, Das Sharma teaches a table corresponding to the data stream, the table including fields indicating whether target-specific aggregated responses have been received from each of the two or more target subsystems, and a field indicating whether an error was reported by the two or more target subsystems (Figure 5 – Reference 518; Page 7, Paragraphs [0073] and [0075]; Page 12, Paragraph [0143]).
(Note: In paragraph [0143], Das Sharma describes memory space transactions as including one or more read and/or write requests to transfer data to and/or from a memory mapped location. In paragraph [0073], Das Sharma describes a receiver subsystem including an error log that is populated with detected errors. Incorporating the error log into the system described by Shah creates a reporting structure that allows for the recited table)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and computer network taught by Shah and Hammer with the method and computer network taught by Das Sharma to minimize the number of packets or messages requiring individual handling [i.e. routing/processing] through aggregation which significantly reduces network overhead and reduces congestion leading to smoother data flow and faster data transfer.
As per Claims 6 and 17, the combination of Shah, Hammer and Das Sharma teaches wherein a target-specific aggregated response corresponding to a target subsystem of the two or more target subsystems indicates that an error was reported by the target subsystem in response to a transaction request of the series of n transaction requests as described in Claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and computer network taught by Shah and Hammer with the method and computer network taught by Das Sharma to minimize the number of packets or messages requiring individual handling [i.e. routing/processing] through aggregation which significantly reduces network overhead and reduces congestion leading to smoother data flow and faster data transfer.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAH et al (2021/0149836 A1) in view of Hammer et al (2013/0166703 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CODDINGTON et al (2022/0210046 A1).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Shah and Hammer teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the data stream is a multicast stream. However, Coddington teaches wherein the data stream is a multicast stream (Page 4, Paragraph [0042] and [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Shah and Hammer with the method taught by Coddington to provide a comprehensive high-level view of operations, trends and patterns that would be difficult to discern from individual data points which allows for informed data driven decision making and faster analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tylee et al (10,594,821 B1), Qiu et al (2009/0288165 A1), FRANK et al (2023/0133723 A1), Tolchinsky et al (2022/0365896 A1), Mehta et al (9,632,828 B1) and Johnson (9,378,049 B1). Each of these describes systems and methods of aggregating transaction responses in data communication systems.
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 KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights