DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 03/15/2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 13, 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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-12 are directed to a machine/system/product and therefore is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 13-16 are directed to a machine/system/product and therefore is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 17-20 are directed to a method (series of steps) and therefore is a process which is one the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 13, and 17 recite the limitation “to identifying that the one or more first data packets are associated with a first unit of the plurality of units.” This limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this function recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person could mentally determine what data packets to associate with a unit. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgement 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 under Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements:
“receive one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from an external host” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“extract the first message from the one or more first data packets” and “store the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“forward the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
The “computing component device” “a plurality of units,” “a unit of controller,” and “hub controller” (claim 1), and “a host software,” “a management controller,” “a managed device” (claim 13), which are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements is merely applying the judicial exception, thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “computing component device” “a plurality of units,” “a unit of controller,” and “hub controller” (claim 1), and “a host software,” “a management controller,” “a managed device” (claim 13), are merely generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements:
“receive one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from an external host” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“extract the first message from the one or more first data packets” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“store the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“forward the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
These elements are storing and retrieving information in memory, a computer function the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims:
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation “the first unit controller comprises a decryption circuit to decrypt the first message.” (This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Dependent claim 3 recites the limitations:
“wherein the first unit controller is further to: responsive to the first message being stored in the memory associated with the first unit controller” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g));
“causing an interrupt signal to be communicated to a processing device” (This amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the computing component device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device.” The “computing component device”, “a processing device,” and “a network controller device” are merely generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of units comprises one or more of: a power management unit, a temperature control unit, a GPU system processor, or a foundation security processor.” The “a power management unit”, “a temperature control unit”, “a GPU system processor”, and “a foundation security processor” are merely generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more first data packets comprise Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP) packets.” The “first data packets”, “one or more first data packets”, and “Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP) packets” are merely generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein to store the first message, the first unit controller is to execute a direct memory access write to the memory associated with the first unit controller.” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the hub controller forwards the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller over a Privileged Register Interface (PRI) bus.” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Dependent claim 9 recites the limitations:
“wherein forwarding the one or more first data packets by the hub controller to the first unit controller” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“extracting the first message from the one or more first data packets by the first unit controller” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“storing the first message in the memory associated with the first unit controller are performed by without software involvement” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Dependent claims 10 recites the limitations:
“wherein the hub controller is further to:” (This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)));
“receive one or more second data packets jointly comprising a second message from the external host” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“wherein at least one data packet of the one or more second data packets is received after receiving at least one earlier-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“prior to receiving at least one later-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets are associated with a second unit of the plurality of units” (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)));
“forward the one or more second data packets to a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Dependent claim 11 recites the limitations:
“generate one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message” (This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)));
“communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller” (This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)));
“wherein a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers is to” (This amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)));
“retrieve a second message to the external host from a memory associated with the second unit controller” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)));
“responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with the external host” (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)));
“forward the one or more second data packets to the external host” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Dependent claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein to retrieve the second message, the first unit controller is to execute a direct memory access read from the memory associated with the first unit controller.” (This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Dependent claim 14 recites the limitation “the managed device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device.” The “managed device”, “a processing device,” and “a network controller device” are merely generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations to claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations to claim 14 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations to claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and further in view of Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1).
As per claim 1, Lowery discloses:
a hub controller communicatively coupled to each unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0099], an appliance controller 120 is coupled to the plurality of SMCs 140A-N through a command interface in order to provide configuration information for memory contained within the SMCs 140A-N, (Examiner Note: appliance controller 120 refers to “a hub controller”, plurality of SMCs 140A-N refers to “the plurality of unit controllers”, and command interface refers to “communicative coupling”)], [¶ [0098], The memory appliance 100A includes a plurality of smart memory units or Smart Memory Cubes (SMCs) 140A-N, each of which includes memory];
responsive to identifying that the one or more first data packets are associated with a first unit of the plurality of units [¶ [0155], Specifically, UDP response packets are prepared by the FPGA (of the SMC controllers 140A-N)] (Examiner Note: UDP packets refers to the “data packets”), [¶ [0134], programmable SMC controller 141 is reconfigured on-the-fly in response to a command directed to memory associated with the programmable SMC 140A that is delivered from the host controller 110] (Examiner Note: in response to a command directed to memory refers to "response to identifying", a command directed to memory associated with the programmable SMC 140A that is delivered from the host controller 110 refers to "that the one or more first data packets", and SMC controller 141 of SMC 140A refers to "a first unit of the plurality of units").
Lowery discloses the claim as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
a computing component device comprising: an intra-device network comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers;
wherein the hub controller is to: receive one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from an external host;
forward the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers;
wherein the first unit controller is to: extract the first message from the one or more first data packets;
store the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller.
However, Bardalai discloses:
wherein the hub controller is to: receive one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from an external host [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message] (Examiner Note: Interface unit controller serves hub-like role so it is refers to “hub controller” and the identifiers are header fields inside the RSVP-TE message (packet) that the controller locates and matches to session entries and message is composed of packets carrying those identifying fields), [Abstract, an interface unit controller, of the interface unit controllers, is configured to receive a message from a different network device] (Examiner Note: different network device corresponds to “external host”);
forward the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0004], The plurality of shelf controllers may populate a forwarding table used to forward data packets via the device. The plurality of interface unit controllers may include a first interface unit controller and a second interface unit controller], [¶ [0002], a network device may include a plurality of shelf controllers and a plurality of interface unit controllers. An interface unit controller, of the plurality of interface unit controllers, may receive a message from a different network device, determine whether a session exists for the message, identify a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, based on the session when the session exists for the message, select the shelf controller, to receive the message, based on a load or mapping of the shelf controller when the session does not exist for the message, and transmit the message to the shelf controller. The shelf controller may program a connection, via a data plane of the network device, based on the message];
store the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0004], the first interface unit controller may receive a first message from an adjacent device; select a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, to receive the first message; and transmit the first message to the shelf controller. The first message may include one or more identifiers], [¶ [0029], Each one of node controller 310, shelf controllers 320, and/or interface unit controllers 330 may include its own processor and memory].
Both Lowery and Bardalai are in the same field of endeavor and they are both focusing on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery to include where the hub controller gets packets, passes them to the unit controller, and the unit controller stores the message as taught by Bardalai in order to improve reliable message handling.
Motivation would be to enhance overall system performance by ensuring the controller can reliably interpret and process jointly received packetized inputs as taught by Bardalai [¶ [0002]].
The combination of Lowery and Bardalai discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
a computing component device comprising: an intra-device network comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers;
wherein the first unit controller is to: extract the first message from the one or more first data packets.
However, Raumann discloses:
wherein the first unit controller is to: extract the first message from the one or more first data packets [Col. 96:66-67, first consumer logic which receives data packets arriving on the first interface and addressed to the master network interface controller RU.sub.k, extracts first messages, and provides the first messages to the SmartNIC dataflow controller].
Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann are in the same field of endeavor as they are all focused on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery and Bardalai to include extracting the first message as taught by Raumann because to convert packetized data into a usable message.
Motivation would be to improve controller performance by enabling efficient conversion of packetized data into usable messages as taught by Raumann [Col. 96].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
a computing component device comprising: an intra-device network comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers.
However, Higashiyama discloses:
a computing component device comprising: an intra-device network comprising: [¶ [0182], The intra-device controllers 81 and the first processing unit 11 connected to the first transmission line 115, and the intra-device controllers 82 and the second processing unit 21 connected to the second transmission line 215 establish a communication network (step ST2)] (Examiner Note: Step ST2 explicitly establishes a communication network for these devices and this shows that multiple units exchange signals over common communication lines, which constitutes an intra-device network)
a plurality of units, each coupled with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0171], a description will be given of a case in which one of the intra-device controllers 81 of the plurality of first devices 107 is configured to function as the first processing unit].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify system of Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann to include a computing device that contains an internal network connecting its component as taught by Higashiyama in order to improve modularity and communication efficiency among multiple unit controllers.
Motivation would be to improve internal communication efficiency by enabling coordinated interaction among multiple units through an intra-device network as taught by Higashiyama [¶ [0182], ¶ [0171]].
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and further in view of Speight (US 20210352463 A1).
As per claim 2, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the first unit controller comprises a decryption circuit to decrypt the first message.
However, Speight discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the first unit controller comprises a decryption circuit to decrypt the first message [¶ [0041], a decryption circuit coupled to the controller and configured to decrypt the first message].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Speight are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing data handling and communication efficiency through integrated or software coordination and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include where the unit controller contains a circuit that decrypts the message as taught by Speight in order to improve secure message processing.
Motivation would be to improve security and ensure safe data transmission by adding a decryption circuit to the first unit controller as taught by Speight [¶ [0041]].
As per claim 3, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Lowery discloses:
the first unit controller causing an interrupt signal to be communicated to a processing device [¶ [0176], the DMA controller may send an interrupt to the processor indicating that the data has been delivered across the external network 650].
The combination of Lowery, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first unit controller is further to: responsive to the first message being stored in the memory associated with the first unit controller.
However, Bardalai discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the first unit controller is further to: responsive to the first message being stored in the memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0004], The first interface unit controller may receive a first message from an adjacent device; select a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, to receive the first message], [¶ [0029], Each one of node controller 310, shelf controllers 320, and/or interface unit controllers 330 may include its own processor and memory].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing data handling and communication efficiency through integrated or software coordination and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include where the unit controller triggers an interrupt signal to be sent to a processing device as taught by Lowery in order to trigger an interrupt after storing a message.
Motivation would be to improve data processing efficiency and alert the processor promptly upon message delivery, as taught by Lowery [¶ [0176]].
As per claim 4, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Lowery discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the computing component device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device [¶ [0286], Computing system 1710 broadly represents any single or multi-processor computing device or system capable of executing computer-readable instructions].
As per claim 5, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Lowery discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of units comprises one or more of: a power management unit, a temperature control unit, a GPU system processor, or a foundation security processor [¶ [0127], the SMC controller monitors all sensors (e.g., temperature, power supplies, etc.), and FPGA status periodically, and reports it back to the host controller. In another case, the SMC controller handles critical system errors (e.g., power brown-out, overheating, hardware failures, etc.)].
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and further in view of Chang (US 20130346666 A1).
As per claim 6, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the one or more first data packets comprise Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP) packets.
However, Chang discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the one or more first data packets comprise Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP) packets [¶ [0078], wherein selected portions (e.g., data in selected fields) of the MCTP over PCIe Message content is extracted and mapped into fields of a QPI message header and data packet(s) via tunneling transformation logic in the IIO block, e.g., via MCTP over PCIe-to-QPI packet generation block 914].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama and Chang are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing hardware control and memory interactions and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include data packets comprising Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP) packets as taught by Chang in order to provide a standardized protocol for exchanging management information between component.
Motivation would be to improve data handling and efficiency by mapping Management Component Transport Protocol (MCTP) content into packet headers as taught by Chang [¶ [0078]].
As per claim 7, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Lowery discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein to store the first message, the first unit controller is to execute a direct memory access write to the memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0207], part of the command execution, the host system/processor will program one of the SMC controller DMA engines to perform the data transfers].
As per claim 8, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Bardalai discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the hub controller forwards the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller over a Privileged Register Interface (PRI) bus [¶ [0004], plurality of shelf controllers may populate a forwarding table used to forward data packets via the device], [¶ [0037], in FIG. 4, controller 400 may include a bus 410, a processor 420, a memory 430, and an input/output component 440].
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and further in view of Kumar (US 7747796 B1).
As per claim 9, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Bardalai discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein forwarding the one or more first data packets by the hub controller to the first unit controller [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message] (Examiner Note: Interface unit controller serves hub-like role so it is refers to “hub controller” and the identifiers are header fields inside the RSVP-TE message (packet) that the controller locates and matches to session entries and message is composed of packets carrying those identifying fields), [Abstract, an interface unit controller, of the interface unit controllers, is configured to receive a message from a different network device] (Examiner Note: different network device corresponds to “external host”),
and storing the first message in the memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0004], the first interface unit controller may receive a first message from an adjacent device; select a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, to receive the first message; and transmit the first message to the shelf controller. The first message may include one or more identifiers], [¶ [0029], Each one of node controller 310, shelf controllers 320, and/or interface unit controllers 330 may include its own processor and memory].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
extracting the first message from the one or more first data packets by the first unit controller;
the first unit controller are performed by without software involvement.
Raumann discloses:
extracting the first message from the one or more first data packets by the first unit controller [Col. 96:66-67, first consumer logic which receives data packets arriving on the first interface and addressed to the master network interface controller RU.sub.k, extracts first messages, and provides the first messages to the SmartNIC dataflow controller].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama are in the same field of endeavor as they are all focused on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, and Higashiyama to include extracting the first message as taught by Raumann in order to convert packetized data into a usable message.
Motivation would be to improve controller performance by enabling efficient conversion of packetized data into usable messages as taught by Raumann [Col. 96].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
the first unit controller are performed by without software involvement.
However, Kumar discloses:
the first unit controller are performed by without software involvement [Col. 3:1-4, a conventional host controller does not generate an interrupt, but instead reissues the command without software intervention once the SATA bus is available].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Kumar are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing data handling by coordinating low-level control with high-level processing for efficient system performance. and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include where the unit controller performs its function entirely in hardware without any software involved as taught by Kumar because to improve hardware efficiency.
Motivation would be to improve system performance and efficiency by eliminating software overhead and processing delays during data handling, as taught by Kumar [Col. 3].
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and further in view of Okada (US 20190379769 A1).
As per claim 10, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Lowery discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein the hub controller is further to: receive one or more second data packets jointly comprising a second message from the external host [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message] (Examiner Note: Interface unit controller serves hub-like role so it is refers to “hub controller” and the identifiers are header fields inside the RSVP-TE message (packet) that the controller locates and matches to session entries and message is composed of packets carrying those identifying fields), [Abstract, an interface unit controller, of the interface unit controllers, is configured to receive a message from a different network device] (Examiner Note: different network device refers to “external host”);
responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets are associated with a second unit of the plurality of units [¶ [0155], Specifically, UDP response packets are prepared by the FPGA (of the SMC controllers 140A-N)] (Examiner Note: UDP packets refers to the “data packets”), [¶ [0104], the memory appliance 100B includes a plurality of SMCs 180A-N, each of which include memory. An appliance controller 165 is coupled to the plurality of SMCs 180A-N through an interface that is a PCIe switch 150 to provide configuration information to the memory];
The combination of Lowery, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claim as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
wherein at least one data packet of the one or more second data packets is received after receiving at least one earlier-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets;
prior to receiving at least one later-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets;
forward the one or more second data packets to a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers.
However, Bardalai discloses:
forward the one or more second data packets to a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0004], The plurality of shelf controllers may populate a forwarding table used to forward data packets via the device. The plurality of interface unit controllers may include a first interface unit controller and a second interface unit controller], [¶ [0002], a network device may include a plurality of shelf controllers and a plurality of interface unit controllers. An interface unit controller, of the plurality of interface unit controllers, may receive a message from a different network device, determine whether a session exists for the message, identify a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, based on the session when the session exists for the message, select the shelf controller, to receive the message, based on a load or mapping of the shelf controller when the session does not exist for the message, and transmit the message to the shelf controller. The shelf controller may program a connection, via a data plane of the network device, based on the message].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama are in the same field of endeavor and they are both focusing on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include forwarding the later arriving second data packets to a different unit controller in the system as taught by Bardalai in order to direct different packets groups to different controllers.
Motivation would be to improve packet routing efficiency by directing later arriving packets to the appropriate controller for balanced processing and smoother system operation as taught by Bardalai [¶ [0002]].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claim as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
wherein at least one data packet of the one or more second data packets is received after receiving at least one earlier-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets;
prior to receiving at least one later-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets.
However, Okada discloses:
wherein at least one data packet of the one or more second data packets is received after receiving at least one earlier-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets [¶ [0011], The processor is configured to acquire a first packet group and a second packet group at a predetermined location in a network. The first packet group is wirelessly transmitted from a first wireless communication device and received by one of a plurality of wireless base stations connected to the network. The second packet group is wirelessly transmitted from a second wireless communication device and received by one of the plurality of wireless base stations. The processor is configured to accumulate the first packet group and the second packet group in the memory in an arrival order. The processor is configured to detect a consecutive number of packets in which a first packet among the first packet group and a second packet among the second packet group are accumulated alternately and consecutively one packet at a time in a time series. The processor is configured to determine whether the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device are connected to a same wireless base station based on the consecutive number];
prior to receiving at least one later-arrived packet of the one or more first data packets [¶ [0011], The processor is configured to acquire a first packet group and a second packet group at a predetermined location in a network. The first packet group is wirelessly transmitted from a first wireless communication device and received by one of a plurality of wireless base stations connected to the network. The second packet group is wirelessly transmitted from a second wireless communication device and received by one of the plurality of wireless base stations. The processor is configured to accumulate the first packet group and the second packet group in the memory in an arrival order. The processor is configured to detect a consecutive number of packets in which a first packet among the first packet group and a second packet among the second packet group are accumulated alternately and consecutively one packet at a time in a time series. The processor is configured to determine whether the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device are connected to a same wireless base station based on the consecutive number] (Examiner Note: Arrival order always implies first packet (earlier-arrived) and second packet (later-arrived). Therefore, the system must receive first packet before second packet to store them in arrival order);
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Okada are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in wireless packet-routing systems and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include receiving at least one second packet after an earlier arrived first packet but before a later arrived first packet as taught by Okada in order to handle packets in partial arrival order.
Motivation would be to improve packet arrival handling so the system can more accurately detect source relationships and enhance overall routing performance as taught by Okada [¶ [0011]].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and Vaishnavi (US 20190199622 A1) and Shimoda (US 6195415 B1) and further in view of Taylor (US 6728885 B1).
As per claim 11, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Bardalai discloses:
The computing component device of claim 1, wherein a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers is to: retrieve a second message to the external host from a memory associated with the second unit controller [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message];
forward the one or more second data packets to the external host [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message] (Examiner Note: Interface unit controller serves hub-like role so it is refers to “hub controller” and the identifiers are header fields inside the RSVP-TE message (packet) that the controller locates and matches to session entries and message is composed of packets carrying those identifying fields), [Abstract, an interface unit controller, of the interface unit controllers, is configured to receive a message from a different network device] (Examiner Note: different network device refers to “external host”).
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
generate one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message;
communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller;
wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with the external host.
However, Vaishnavi discloses:
generate one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message [¶ [0053], the controller 208 is configured to generate a second control message for the data packet forwarding unit 202];
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama and Vaishnavi are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include generating multiple second packets that together make up the second message as taught by Vaishnavi in order to form a message from a set of packets.
Motivation would be to improve outbound message construction by generating packets that jointly form the control message, enabling clearer signaling and smoother forwarding performance as taught by Vaishnavi [¶ [0053]].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Vaishnavi discloses the claim as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller;
wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with the external host.
However, Shimoda discloses:
communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller [Col. 6:49-52, the data packets communicated between the hub controller 10 and the radio cells each include a one-byte start field to indicate the start of a data packet frame].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Vaishnavi to include sending the second data packets to the hub controller as taught by Shimoda in order to route constructed packets to a central controller.
Motivation would be to improve system communication reliability by ensuring the second data packets are properly delivered to the hub controller for consistent frame handling as taught by Shimoda [Col. 6].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with the external host.
However, Taylor discloses:
wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with the external host [Col. 12:11-15, the source address is modified to reflect the IP address of firewall 201, and the packet is forwarded to external host 453. In response to the packet, external host 453 forwards an acknowledging packet, i.e., an ACK packet, having an address of B/FW].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, Shimoda, and Taylor are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda to include identify data packets and have them reflect to an address associated with the external host as taught by Taylor in order for the system to accurately route traffic and prevent data transmission error.
Motivation would be to improve network efficiency and security because hiding internal network addresses prevents unauthorized access while ensuring packets are routed correctly as taught by Taylor [Col. 12].
As per claim 12, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, Shimoda, and Taylor discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 and 11.
Lowery discloses:
The computing component device of claim 11, wherein to retrieve the second message, the first unit controller is to execute a direct memory access read from the memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0207], part of the command execution, the host system/processor will program one of the SMC controller DMA engines to perform the data transfers].
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and further in view of Shanbhogue (US 9652388 B2).
As per claim 13, Lowery discloses:
a hub controller communicatively coupled to each unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0099], an appliance controller 120 is coupled to the plurality of SMCs 140A-N through a command interface in order to provide configuration information for memory contained within the SMCs 140A-N, (Examiner Note: appliance controller 120 refers to “a hub controller”, plurality of SMCs 140A-N refers to “the plurality of unit controllers”, and command interface refers to “communicative coupling”)], [¶ [0098], The memory appliance 100A includes a plurality of smart memory units or Smart Memory Cubes (SMCs) 140A-N, each of which includes memory],
responsive to identifying that the one or more first data packets are associated with a first unit of the plurality of units [¶ [0155], Specifically, UDP response packets are prepared by the FPGA (of the SMC controllers 140A-N)] (Examiner Note: UDP packets refers to the “data packets”), [¶ [0134], programmable SMC controller 141 is reconfigured on-the-fly in response to a command directed to memory associated with the programmable SMC 140A that is delivered from the host controller 110] (Examiner Note: in response to a command directed to memory refers to "response to identifying", a command directed to memory associated with the programmable SMC 140A that is delivered from the host controller 110 refers to "that the one or more first data packets", and SMC controller 141 of SMC 140A refers to "a first unit of the plurality of units"),
Lowery discloses the claim as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
A computing system comprising:a host software; a management controller communicatively coupled to the host software;
and a managed device communicatively coupled to the management controller,
the managed device comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled to a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers;
wherein the hub controller is to: receive one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from the management controller;
forward the one or more first data packets to a first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers;
and wherein the first unit controller is to: extract the first message from the one or more first data packets;
and store the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller.
However, Bardalai discloses:
wherein the hub controller is to: receive one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from the management controller [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message] (Examiner Note: Interface unit controller serves hub-like role so it is refers to “hub controller” and the identifiers are header fields inside the RSVP-TE message (packet) that the controller locates and matches to session entries and message is composed of packets carrying those identifying fields), [Abstract, an interface unit controller, of the interface unit controllers, is configured to receive a message from a different network device] (Examiner Note: different network device refers to “management controller”);
forward the one or more first data packets to a first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0004], The plurality of shelf controllers may populate a forwarding table used to forward data packets via the device. The plurality of interface unit controllers may include a first interface unit controller and a second interface unit controller], [¶ [0002], a network device may include a plurality of shelf controllers and a plurality of interface unit controllers. An interface unit controller, of the plurality of interface unit controllers, may receive a message from a different network device, determine whether a session exists for the message, identify a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, based on the session when the session exists for the message, select the shelf controller, to receive the message, based on a load or mapping of the shelf controller when the session does not exist for the message, and transmit the message to the shelf controller. The shelf controller may program a connection, via a data plane of the network device, based on the message];
and store the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0004]], the first interface unit controller may receive a first message from an adjacent device; select a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, to receive the first message; and transmit the first message to the shelf controller. The first message may include one or more identifiers], [¶ [0029], Each one of node controller 310, shelf controllers 320, and/or interface unit controllers 330 may include its own processor and memory].
Both Lowery and Bardalai are in the same field of endeavor and they are both focusing on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery to include where the hub controller gets packets, passes them to the unit controller, and the unit controller stores the message as taught by Bardalai in order to improve reliable message handling.
Motivation would be to enhance overall system performance by ensuring the controller can reliably interpret and process jointly received packetized inputs as taught by Bardalai [¶ [0002]].
The combination of Lowery and Bardalai discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
A computing system comprising:a host software; a management controller communicatively coupled to the host software;
and a managed device communicatively coupled to the management controller,
the managed device comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled to a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers;
and wherein the first unit controller is to: extract the first message from the one or more first data packets;
However, Raumann discloses:
wherein the first unit controller is to: extract the first message from the one or more first data packets [Col. 96:66-67, first consumer logic which receives data packets arriving on the first interface and addressed to the master network interface controller RU.sub.k, extracts first messages, and provides the first messages to the SmartNIC dataflow controller].
Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann are in the same field of endeavor as they are all focused on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery and Bardalai to include extracting the first message as taught by Raumann because to convert packetized data into a usable message.
Motivation would be to improve controller performance by enabling efficient conversion of packetized data into usable messages as taught by Raumann [Col. 96].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
A computing system comprising:a host software; a management controller communicatively coupled to the host software;
and a managed device communicatively coupled to the management controller,
the managed device comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled to a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers.
However, Higashiyama discloses:
the managed device comprising: a plurality of units, each coupled to a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0171], a description will be given of a case in which one of the intra-device controllers 81 of the plurality of first devices 107 is configured to function as the first processing unit] (Examiner Note: In. ¶ [0011] for the specification recited “a managed device (e.g., a processing device or a network controller)”)
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify system of Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann to include a computing device that contains an internal network connecting its component as taught by Higashiyama in order to improve modularity and communication efficiency among multiple unit controllers.
Motivation would be to improve internal communication efficiency by enabling coordinated interaction among multiple units through an intra-device network as taught by Higashiyama [¶ [0182], ¶ [0171]].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
A computing system comprising: a host software; a management controller communicatively coupled to the host software;
a managed device communicatively coupled to the management controller.
However, Shanbhogue discloses:
A computing system comprising: a host software; a management controller communicatively coupled to the host software [Col. 8:32-36, understand that host controller 230 may have generally include hardware, software, firmware and communications thereof, generally referred to as logic, to enable handling and communication of MCTP-based information between management controller 220];
a managed device communicatively coupled to the management controller [Col. 6:55-58, This protocol facilitates communication between two or more management controllers in a platform, and between a management controller and managed devices in the platform].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing data handling and communication efficiency through integrated or software coordination and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include a host software, a management controller communicatively coupled to the host software, and a managed device communicatively coupled to the management controller as taught by Shanbhogue because doing so would improve communication and coordination between management controllers and managed devices through a standardized management interface.
Motivation would be to improve communication and coordination because a management controller communicatively coupled between host software and managed devices facilitates the exchange of management information among those component as taught by Shanbhogue [Col. 6, Col. 8].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and Shanbhogue (US 9652388 B2) and further in view of Liu (US 20190356531 A1).
As per claim 14, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue closes the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 13 but does not explicitly teach:
The computing system of claim 13, wherein the managed device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device.
However, Liu discloses:
The computing system of claim 13, wherein the managed device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device [¶ [0056], the status indication may include a CPU, a memory usage rate, and the like of the managed device].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, and Liu are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing data handling and communication efficiency through integrated or software coordination and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue to include where the managed device includes either a processing unit or a network controller as taught by Liu in order to improve managed-device capability and overall system performance.
Motivation would be to improve system monitoring by using basic device metrics like CPU or network-controller status so performance issues can be detected quickly as taught by Liu [¶ [0056]].
As per claim 15, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 13.
Lowery discloses:
The computing system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of units comprises one or more of:a power management unit, a temperature control unit, a GPU system processor, or a foundation security processor [¶ [0127], the SMC controller monitors all sensors (e.g., temperature, power supplies, etc.), and FPGA status periodically, and reports it back to the host controller. In another case, the SMC controller handles critical system errors (e.g., power brown-out, overheating, hardware failures, etc.)].
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and Shanbhogue (US 9652388 B2) and Vaishnavi (US 20190199622 A1) and Shimoda (US 6195415 B1) and further in view of Butcher (US 20200220812 A1).
As per claim 16, The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 13.
Bardalai discloses:
The computing system of claim 13, wherein a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers is to:retrieve a second message to the host software from a memory associated with the second unit controller [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
generate one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message to the management controller;
and communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller;
and wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the host software or the management controller,
forward the one or more second data packets to the management controller.
However, Vaishnavi discloses:
generate one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message to the management controller [¶ [0053], the controller 208 is configured to generate a second control message for the data packet forwarding unit 202];
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, and Vaishnavi are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Shanbhogue to include generating multiple second packets that together make up the second message as taught by Vaishnavi in order to form a message from a set of packets.
Motivation would be to improve outbound message construction by generating packets that jointly form the control message, enabling clearer signaling and smoother forwarding performance as taught by Vaishnavi [¶ [0053]].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, and Vaishnavi discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
and communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller;
and wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the host software or the management controller,
forward the one or more second data packets to the management controller.
However, Shimoda discloses:
communicate the one or more second data packets to the hub controller [Col. 6:49-52, the data packets communicated between the hub controller 10 and the radio cells each include a one-byte start field to indicate the start of a data packet frame].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, and Vaishnavi to include sending the second data packets to the hub controller as taught by Shimoda in order to route constructed packets to a central controller.
Motivation would be to improve system communication reliability by ensuring the second data packets are properly delivered to the hub controller for consistent frame handling as taught by Shimoda [Col. 6].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the host software or the management controller;
forward the one or more second data packets to the management controller.
However, Butcher discloses:
wherein the hub controller is further to: responsive to identifying that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the host software or the management controller [¶ [0025], in which only certain source addresses, and/or specific remote devices, can send packets and communicate with the baseboard management controller 200],
forward the one or more second data packets to the management controller [¶ [0025], in which only certain source addresses, and/or specific remote devices, can send packets and communicate with the baseboard management controller 200].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, Vaishnavi, Shimoda, and Butcher are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Shanbhogue, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda to include forwarding second data packets to the management controller in response to identifying that the packets reference an address associated with the host software or management controller as taught by Butcher because doing so enables management related communications to be directed to the appropriate management controller for processing.
Motivation would be to improve management communication because directing packets associated with management controllers enables proper processing of management related messages as taught by Butcher [¶ [0025]].
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and further in view of Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1).
As per claim 17, Lowery discloses:
identifying that the one or more first data packets are associated with a first unit of a plurality of units of the network [¶ [0155], Specifically, UDP response packets are prepared by the FPGA (of the SMC controllers 140A-N)] (Examiner Note: UDP packets refers to the “data packets”), [¶ [0134], programmable SMC controller 141 is reconfigured on-the-fly in response to a command directed to memory associated with the programmable SMC 140A that is delivered from the host controller 110] (Examiner Note: in response to a command directed to memory refers to "response to identifying", a command directed to memory associated with the programmable SMC 140A that is delivered from the host controller 110 refers to "that the one or more first data packets", and SMC controller 141 of SMC 140A refers to "a first unit of the plurality of units"),
Lowery discloses the claim as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
A method comprising:receiving, by a hub controller of a network of a managed device,
one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from a management controller;
wherein each unit of the plurality of units is associated with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers;
forwarding the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers;
extracting, using the first unit controller, the first message from the one or more first data packets;
and storing the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller.
However, Bardalai discloses:
A method comprising:receiving, by a hub controller of a network of a managed device,
one or more first data packets jointly comprising a first message from a management controller [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message] (Examiner Note: Interface unit controller serves hub-like role so it is refers to “hub controller” and the identifiers are header fields inside the RSVP-TE message (packet) that the controller locates and matches to session entries and message is composed of packets carrying those identifying fields), [Abstract, an interface unit controller, of the interface unit controllers, is configured to receive a message from a different network device] (Examiner Note: different network device refers to “management controller”);
forwarding the one or more first data packets to the first unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0004], The plurality of shelf controllers may populate a forwarding table used to forward data packets via the device. The plurality of interface unit controllers may include a first interface unit controller and a second interface unit controller], [¶ [0002], a network device may include a plurality of shelf controllers and a plurality of interface unit controllers. An interface unit controller, of the plurality of interface unit controllers, may receive a message from a different network device, determine whether a session exists for the message, identify a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, based on the session when the session exists for the message, select the shelf controller, to receive the message, based on a load or mapping of the shelf controller when the session does not exist for the message, and transmit the message to the shelf controller. The shelf controller may program a connection, via a data plane of the network device, based on the message];
and storing the first message in a memory associated with the first unit controller [¶ [0004]], the first interface unit controller may receive a first message from an adjacent device; select a shelf controller, of the plurality of shelf controllers, to receive the first message; and transmit the first message to the shelf controller. The first message may include one or more identifiers], [¶ [0029], Each one of node controller 310, shelf controllers 320, and/or interface unit controllers 330 may include its own processor and memory].
Both Lowery and Bardalai are in the same field of endeavor and they are both focusing on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery to include where the hub controller gets packets, passes them to the unit controller, and the unit controller stores the message as taught by Bardalai in order to improve reliable message handling.
Motivation would be to enhance overall system performance by ensuring the controller can reliably interpret and process jointly received packetized inputs as taught by Bardalai [¶ [0002]].
The combination of Lowery and Bardalai discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
wherein each unit of the plurality of units is associated with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers;
extracting, using the first unit controller, the first message from the one or more first data packets.
However, Raumann discloses:
extracting, using the first unit controller, the first message from the one or more first data packets [Col. 96:66-67, first consumer logic which receives data packets arriving on the first interface and addressed to the master network interface controller RU.sub.k, extracts first messages, and provides the first messages to the SmartNIC dataflow controller].
Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann are in the same field of endeavor as they are all focused on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery and Bardalai to include extracting the first message as taught by Raumann because to convert packetized data into a usable message.
Motivation would be to improve controller performance by enabling efficient conversion of packetized data into usable messages as taught by Raumann [Col. 96].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann discloses the claimed invention as detailed above but does not explicitly teach:
wherein each unit of the plurality of units is associated with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers.
However, Higashiyama discloses:
wherein each unit of the plurality of units is associated with a unit controller of a plurality of unit controllers [¶ [0171], a description will be given of a case in which one of the intra-device controllers 81 of the plurality of first devices 107 is configured to function as the first processing unit].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing system performance by bridging high-level operations with low-level execution control and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify system of Lowery, Bardalai, and Raumann to include a computing device that contains an internal network connecting its component as taught by Higashiyama in order to improve modularity and communication efficiency among multiple unit controllers.
Motivation would be to improve internal communication efficiency by enabling coordinated interaction among multiple units through an intra-device network as taught by Higashiyama [¶ [0182], ¶ [0171]].
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and further in view of Liu (US 20190356531 A1).
As per claim 18, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 17, wherein the managed device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device.
However, Liu discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the managed device comprises at least one of a processing device or a network controller device [¶ [0056], the status indication may include a CPU, a memory usage rate, and the like of the managed device].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Liu are in the same field of endeavor as they all focus on optimizing data handling and communication efficiency through integrated or software coordination and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include where the managed device includes either a processing unit or a network controller as taught by Liu in order to improve managed-device capability and overall system performance.
Motivation would be to improve system monitoring by using basic device metrics like CPU or network-controller status so performance issues can be detected quickly as taught by Liu [¶ [0056]].
As per claim 19, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17.
Lowery discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein the plurality of units comprises one or more of:a power management unit, a temperature control unit, a GPU system processor, or a foundation security processor [¶ [0127], the SMC controller monitors all sensors (e.g., temperature, power supplies, etc.), and FPGA status periodically, and reports it back to the host controller. In another case, the SMC controller handles critical system errors (e.g., power brown-out, overheating, hardware failures, etc.)].
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowery (US 20150178243 A1) and Bardalai (US 20130003753 A1) and Raumann (US 11237880 B1) and Higashiyama (US 20220170657 A1) and Vaishnavi (US 20190199622 A1) and Shimoda (US 6195415 B1) and Shanbhogue (US 9652388 B2) and further in view of Butcher (US 20200220812 A1).
As per claim 20, the combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17.
Bardalai discloses:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:retrieving, by a second unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers, a second message from a memory associated with the second unit controller [¶ [0004], The second interface unit controller may receive a second message; select the shelf controller to receive the second message when one or more identifiers included in the second message match the one or more identifiers included in the first message];
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
generating, by the second unit controller, one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message;
communicating, by the second unit controller, the one or more second data packets to the hub controller;
identifying, by the hub controller, that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the management controller or an external host;
and forwarding, by the hub controller, the one or more second data packets to the management controller.
However, Vaishnavi discloses:
generating, by the second unit controller, one or more second data packets jointly comprising the second message [¶ [0053], the controller 208 is configured to generate a second control message for the data packet forwarding unit 202].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama and Vaishnavi are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, and Higashiyama to include generating multiple second packets that together make up the second message as taught by Vaishnavi in order to form a message from a set of packets.
Motivation would be to improve outbound message construction by generating packets that jointly form the control message, enabling clearer signaling and smoother forwarding performance as taught by Vaishnavi [¶ [0053]].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Vaishnavi discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
communicating, by the second unit controller, the one or more second data packets to the hub controller;
identifying, by the hub controller, that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the management controller or an external host;
and forwarding, by the hub controller, the one or more second data packets to the management controller.
However, Shimoda discloses:
communicating, by the second unit controller, the one or more second data packets to the hub controller [Col. 6:49-52, the data packets communicated between the hub controller 10 and the radio cells each include a one-byte start field to indicate the start of a data packet frame].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, and Vaishnavi to include sending the second data packets to the hub controller as taught by Shimoda in order to route constructed packets to a central controller.
Motivation would be to improve system communication reliability by ensuring the second data packets are properly delivered to the hub controller for consistent frame handling as taught by Shimoda [¶ [Col. 6]].
The combination of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda discloses the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 17 but does not explicitly teach:
identifying, by the hub controller, that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the management controller or an external host;
and forwarding, by the hub controller, the one or more second data packets to the management controller.
However, Butcher discloses:
identifying, by the hub controller, that the one or more second data packets reference an address associated with at least one of the management controller or an external host [¶ [0025], in which only certain source addresses, and/or specific remote devices, can send packets and communicate with the baseboard management controller 200];
and forwarding, by the hub controller, the one or more second data packets to the management controller [¶ [0025], in which only certain source addresses, and/or specific remote devices, can send packets and communicate with the baseboard management controller 200].
Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, Shimoda, and Butcher are in the same field of endeavor and they are all in packet based communication systems, and therefore are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Lowery, Bardalai, Raumann, Higashiyama, Vaishnavi, and Shimoda to include forwarding second data packets to the management controller in response to identifying that the packets reference an address associated with the host software or management controller as taught by Butcher because doing so enables management related communications to be directed to the appropriate management controller for processing.
Motivation would be to improve management communication because directing packets associated with management controllers enables proper processing of management related messages as taught by Butcher [¶ [0025]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elmaliah (US 8948173 B2) teaches “packets received at the managed device 502 may first process the received packet at the second protocol interface 512 to remove any transport protocol data and may then process the result at the first protocol interface 510 to recover the original message” [Col. 7:9-13].
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially Page 14 Application/Control Number: 18/582,274 Art Unit: 2198 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.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien Tram whose telephone number is (571) 270-3050. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00a-4:00p. 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, Pierre M. Vital can be reached at (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.
/TIEN THANH TRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
