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. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: There’s a grammatical issue and likely the “is” in line 2 should be “[[is]] being ”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: There’s an apparent typographical error in line one regarding the recitation of “ne.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11-14 and 16 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. Claims 11 and 16 recite the limitation “the control circuitry” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11; therefore, they are indefinite for the same reason. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim (s) 1 -20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinan (US 2019/0042337) and further in view of Agarwal (US 2018/0189104) . Regarding claim 1, Dinan teaches: A method executable on a computing system, comprising: storing, in a first storage medium of the computing system, descriptors identifying corresponding triggered operations (¶ 57, “ the HFI 120 may generate a triggered operation to retrieve a handle associated with the mutable triggered operation in block 512, generate another triggered operation to copy the parameter(s) from the HFI 120 to host memory in block 514, and generate still another triggered operation ”) to be performed based on respective trigger conditions (¶ 62, “ determine whether a value of the counter matches a trigger threshold of a triggered operation in a triggered operation queue associated with the counter ”) ; storing a data structure in a second storage medium of a network interface controller (NIC) of the computing system ( ¶ 67, “ insert the created triggered operation into the triggered operation queue ” and ¶ 28, “ The illustrative communication circuitry 118 includes an HFI 120, which may also be referred to as a network interface controller (NIC) in some embodiments ” ) . Dinan does not teach; however, Agarwal discloses: determining, for a first process (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can receive an enqueue command (ENQCMD/S) message from an agent (402) ”) , a first window size indicating a number of available entries in the data structure (¶ 94, “ If there is a hit, then the VSWQ can determine whether there are available credits for the SWQ (408) ”) ; in response to the first window size indicating an available entry in the data structure (¶ 94, “ If there is at least one credit available in the credit counter on the VSWQ, then a success message can be sent to the requesting device (412) ”) , inserting a first descriptor of a first triggered operation generated by the first process into a first work queue associated with the first process (¶ 94, “The VSWQ can receive an enqueue command (ENQCMD/S) message from an agent (402)”) ; determining presence of the first descriptor in the first work queue (¶ 94, “ the VSWQ can determine whether there are available credits for the SWQ (408) ”) ; transferring the first descriptor from the first work queue to the data structure (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can also forward the ENQCMD/S message to the SWQ on the device (414) ”) ; and decrementing the first window size indicating an updated number of available entries in the data structure for the first process (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can decrement the credit counter (416). ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of determining, for a first process, a first window size indicating a number of available entries in the data structure; in response to the first window size indicating an available entry in the data structure, inserting a first descriptor of a first triggered operation generated by the first process into a first work queue associated with the first process; determining presence of the first descriptor in the first work queue; transferring the first descriptor from the first work queue to the data structure; and decrementing the first window size indicating an updated number of available entries in the data structure for the first process , as taught by Agarwal , in the same way to the method , as taught by Dinan . Both inventions are in the field of controlling operations performed by a network controller , and combining them would have predictably resulted in “ optimized work submission to an accelerator work queue ,” as indicated by Agarwal ( ¶ 1 ). Regarding claim 2, Dinan teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting satisfaction of a trigger condition for the first triggered operation (¶ 54, “ the HFI 120 determines whether the value of the identified counter matches the trigger threshold of the first triggered operation in the identified triggered operation queue ”) ; obtaining the first descriptor from the data structure (¶ 53, “ In block 406, the HFI 120 identifies a triggered operation queue associated with the identified counter ”) ; executing the first triggered operation based on information in the first descriptor (¶ 54, “ In block 414, the HFI 120 executes the one or more commands associated with the matching triggered operation (see, e.g., the method 500 of FIG. 5) ”) ; and incrementing the first window size (¶ 55, “ In block 420, the HFI 120 re-inserts the triggered operation into the triggered operation queue ” and Agarwal, ¶ 95, “ The completion message can be a success message or other flag. The VSWQ can increment the credit counter (420) ”) . Regarding claim 3, Dinan teaches: The method of claim 2, further comprising: generating, by a processor of the computing system, the first triggered operation based on execution of the first process (¶ 67, “ in response to having received a triggered operation creation request . . . create the triggered operation as a function of the one or more parameters ”) ; and executing, by an accelerator of the computing system, a trigger event satisfying the trigger condition and causing the NIC to execute the first triggered operation (¶ 54, “ In block 414, the HFI 120 executes the one or more commands associated with the matching triggered operation (see, e.g., the method 500 of FIG. 5) ” and Agarwal, ¶ 42, “ The I/O device (referred to as accelerator devices in this disclosure) supports a common command interface for work submission from all of its clients. This common command interface is referred to herein as a “Shared Work Queue” (SWQ) ” ) . Regarding claim 4, Dinan teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein executing the first triggered operation further comprises sending a packet comprising payload data generated by the first process (¶ 16, “ a triggered operation may be a communication operation issued by the application ” and ¶ 3, “ the parameters (e.g., buffer, message size, matching information, destination, etc.) of such triggered operations are typically fixed at the time of issue by software and, as such, the parameters cannot be changed prior to the associated operations being fired ”) . Regarding claim 5, Dinan teaches: The method of claim 4, wherein the trigger condition is satisfied in response to execution of a segment of the first process generating the payload data is complete (¶ 41, “ The identifying parameters of the triggered operation may include any information usable to identify when the triggered operation is fired (e.g., a trigger threshold, a threshold increment, etc.) and/or what actions are to be undertaken when the triggered operation is fired (i.e., one or more commands to be performed upon execution of the triggered operation) ”) . Regarding claim 6, Agarwal teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising decrementing the first window size in response to an iteration of the first process being completed (¶ 156 , “ code that when executed causes the machine to decrement the at least one credit ”) , and wherein a number of decrements of the first window size indicate a number of triggered operations in the iteration ( ¶ 89, “ the VSWQ 302 is implemented using a set of credit counters which tracks the availability of SWQ buffers at the target device ” ) . Regarding claim 7, Agarwal teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, for a second process, a second window size indicating a number of available entries in the data structure (¶ 89, “ the VSWQ 302 is implemented using a set of credit counters which tracks the availability of SWQ buffers at the target device ”) ; transferring, from a second work queue associated with the second process, a second descriptor of a second triggered operation to the data structure (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can receive an enqueue command (ENQCMD/S) message from an agent (402). The ENQCMD/S can be indexed to the VSWQ based on a shared MMIO address associated with the shared work queue (SWQ) on a destination device ”) ; and decrementing the second window size indicating an updated number of available entries in the data structure for the second process (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can also forward the ENQCMD/S message to the SWQ on the device (414). The VSWQ can decrement the credit counter (416) ”) . Regarding claim 8, Agarwal teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining unavailability of an entry in the data structure based on the first window size (¶ 94, “ the VSWQ can determine whether there are available credits for the SWQ (408). ”) ; and refraining from inserting a triggered descriptor into the first work queue (¶ 94, “ If there are no credits available, then the VSWQ can send a retry message to the requesting device (410) ”) . Regarding claim 9, Agarwal teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining presence of the first descriptor in the first work queue based on a register value set by the first process (¶ 63, “ some devices may treat it as a doorbell command where the payload specifies the actual work descriptor in memory to fetch from) ”) ; reading from the first work queue based on a pointer controlled by the NIC (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can receive an enqueue command (ENQCMD/S) message from an agent (402). The ENQCMD/S can be indexed to the VSWQ based on a shared MMIO address associated with the shared work queue (SWQ) on a destination device ”) ; and updating the pointer to indicate a subsequent location in the first work queue (¶ 94, “ The VSWQ can also forward the ENQCMD/S message to the SWQ on the device (414) ”) . Claims 10-20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Beecroft (US 2022/0217079); and Aingaran (US 9,571,408). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9993 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Pierre Vital can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4215 . 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. /JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198