DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to Remarks and Amendments filed on 27 March, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding amended claims 1, 10 and 17, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitation. Examiner finds the argument are directed to steps that are not positively recited as claim steps but rather as an intended use or result of the preceding steps. Based on such rationale, Examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because the steps are not recited positively in a manner that clearly defines the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, but instead recited as an intended use/result of the preceding limitations. As such, the amended limitation is not being given patentable weight. Respective dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of the parent claim(s) and therefore, inherit the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness et al (US 2014/0059556), in view of Kabbani et al (US 9,184,999), further in view of Ruan et al (WO 03084129).
Regarding claim 1, Barsness teaches a device comprising:
a control circuit configured to:
receive, from each of a plurality of nodes in a collective network, a state with respect to initializing the collective network for a collective operation (Barsness fig.8 and [0064] provides “In block 132, the program code receives a workload. In some embodiments, the front-end nodes may receive the workload and transfer the workload to the service nodes. In block 134, the program code analyzes the workload and transforms the workload into at least one job that may be executed by the nodes of the system. In some embodiments, the service nodes may analyze the workload and transform the workload into the at least one job. In block 136, the program code may determine an estimated processing requirement for each job. As such, the program code may determine the amount of work that will be required to process each job, as well as determine the increased heat and/or energy load for the node and/or system that may be caused by the job.”; Barsness fig.9 and [0069] provides “…determines the processing load of at least one node…”);
and establish, based on the received states of the plurality of nodes, a topology of data routes for the collective operation (Barsness [0065] provides “…the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs...”).
Barness teaches the above including a topology of data routes to perform the collective operation (Barness [0065]), but Barness does not explicitly teach wherein the topology of data routes defines directional links between the plurality of nodes for operating on and sending data. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kabbani teaches wherein the topology of data routes defines directional links between the plurality of nodes for operating on and sending data (Kabbani col.8 lines 33-55 provides “The network topology configuration process 300 continues at phase 303, where the network topology configuration module 205 assigns unutilized capacity resulting from the link assignments in phase 302 to make multi-hop routes to satisfy remaining demands. To do so, the network topology configuration module 205 generates a slack subgraph, representing those instances where a bi-directional link was assigned between a pair of nodes, thus creating bi-directional data throughput capacity, but where the demand in one direction across the pair of nodes is greater than the demand in the other direction across the pair of nodes. These instances thus provide unutilized capacity between these pairs of nodes in one direction only. The network topology configuration module 205 processes the slack subgraph to determine what multi-hop data routes can be established between pairs of nodes utilizing the as-of-yet unutilized capacity. The network topology configuration module 205 establishes these data routes seeking to satisfy the maximum achievable demands by use of that subgraph, excluding any allocations exceeding m-hop routes, where m is a predetermined maximum route length”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Kabbani for defining data routes between nodes. The teachings of Kabbani, when implemented in the Barness system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to control route assignments such that inefficiency such as unutilized link capacity is reduced. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Barness-Kabbani teaches the above but Barness-Kabbani does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of nodes includes a plurality of root level nodes and the collective operation specifies one or more source nodes of the plurality of root level nodes having initial data to send and one or more destination nodes of the plurality of root level nodes to receive result data. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ruan teaches wherein the plurality of nodes includes a plurality of root level nodes and a plurality of leaf nodes, and the collective operation specifies one or more source nodes of the plurality of root level nodes having initial data to send and one or more destination nodes of the plurality of root level nodes to receive result data (Ruan Abstract provides “a network topology information collecting method. Firstly, the topology information collecting equipment sends the topology information collecting requiring messages to the respectively adjacent nodes from the local nodes, the requiring messages include the fields for limiting the messages' transmitting times. The topology information collecting equipment repeatly performs the following operation: the nodes which receive the requiring messages return the responsing messages to the topology information collecting equipment; and the equipment judges whether the messages' transmitting times reach the threshold, if "yes", then the operation ends; if "no", the nodes which receive the requiring messages transmit the requiring messages to respectively all the adjacent nodes. Thus the invention realizes the network topology information collecting”; Under the section “Background Technique” Ruan provides “Therefore, the existing implementation methods are based on the tree structure”; “The network performs the topology report by sending a topology report to the root node of the tree, that is, the uplink direction, and summarizes the entire network topology at the root node of the tree”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Ruan for designating a source node and destination nodes for messaging and consequently, identifying network topology. The teachings of Ruan, when implemented in the Barness- Kabbani system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to effectively collect network topology information (Ruan Absract). Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the state corresponds to a job profile of a node and a readiness status of the node (Barsness fig.8 and [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the job profile corresponds to a processing capacity of the node (Barsness figs.8-9 and [0064], [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the job profile corresponds to a memory capacity of the node (Barsness [0036] provides “Each compute node 12 includes one or more computing cores and a memory from which to store and execute tasks.”).
Regarding claim 5, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein establishing the topology comprises identifying, from the job profiles of the plurality of nodes, destination nodes capable of processing data as needed for the collective operation (Barsness [0065] provides “…the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs...”).
Regarding claim 6, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein establishing the topology comprises prioritizing links between nodes based on the readiness statuses of corresponding nodes of the plurality of nodes (Barsness [0065] provides “…the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs...”).
Regarding claim 7, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein establishing the topology comprises prioritizing links based on the job profiles of corresponding nodes of the plurality of nodes (Barsness [0065] provides “…the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs...”).
Regarding claim 8, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein establishing the topology comprises selecting nodes for a level of the collective network capable of processing the collective operation as needed for the level based on the job profiles (Barsness [0065] provides “…the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs...”).
Regarding claim 9, Barsness-Kabbani-Ruan teaches the device of claim 8, wherein establishing the topology comprises establishing links to the selected nodes to nodes of a prior level and nodes of subsequent level (Barsness [0065] provides “…the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs...”).
Regarding claim 10, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 5, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 6, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 14, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 7, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 8, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 9, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within those of claims 1, 2 and 5, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains limitations found within those of claims 3-4, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 19, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 9, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lewin-Eytan et al (US 2013/0279327).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights