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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response the RCE and remarks filed on 25 February 2026.
Claims 1-14,16-17 and 19-20 are presently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14,16-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeilin et al., U. S. Patent No. 12093571 in view of Joshua et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0286363 and further in view of Gurajada, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0103502.
Regarding claim 1, Schmeilin discloses a system, comprising: a first network device, to (i) connect a host to a network (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 102; client network device is shown) and (ii) send over the network a command that requests logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host (see Schmeilin, col. 3 line 21-24 and col. 4 liens 33-36; request command is sent by the client network device); and a second network device, to receive the command over the network (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 104; host device is shown); execute the command by (see Schmeilin, col. 4 line 66-col. 5 line 6; request is received by the host and executed).
Although Schmeilin discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host and logging the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device.
Joshua teaches recording of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host and logging the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device (see Joshua, ¶ [0027] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joshua with that of Schmeilin in order to efficient keep track of the all the transactions related to a remote direct memory operation performed.
Although the combination of Schmeilin and Joshua disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions.
Gurajada teaches crash recovery method comprising and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions (see Gurajada, ¶ [0004] and [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gurajada with that of Schmeilin-Joshua in order to efficiently recover software process failure using logged transactions.
Regarding claim 2, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the second network device is to connect a second host to the network, and wherein the memory is a memory of the second host (see Schmeilin, col. 5 lines 16-22 and Joshua, ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the command is embedded in a transport protocol used by the first and second network devices (see Schmeilin, col. 5 lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 4, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the transport protocol is a Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) protocol (see Schmeilin, col. 3 lines 4-7; remote direct memory access is provided).
Regarding claim 5, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the second network device is to execute the command atomically (see Schmeilin, col. 15 lines 4-10 and col. 6 line 6-17).
Regarding claim 6, Schmeilin disclose a network device, comprising: a host interface, to connect to a host (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 102; client network device is shown); a network interface, to connect to a network (see Schmeilin, col. 3 line 21-24 and col. 4 liens 33-36; request command is sent by the client network device); and processing circuitry, to connect the host to a network, and to send over the network a command that requests (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 104 and col. 4 line 66-col. 5 line 6; request is received by the host and executed); thereby causing a second network device to (i) to receive the command over the network (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 104; host device is shown);.
Although Schmeilin discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host and (ii) log the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device.
Joshua teaches logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host and ii) log the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device (see Joshua, ¶ [0027] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joshua with that of Schmeilin in order to efficient keep track of the all the transactions related to a remote direct memory operation performed.
Although the combination of Schmeilin and Joshua disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions.
Gurajada teaches crash recovery method comprising and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions (see Gurajada, ¶ [0004] and [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gurajada with that of Schmeilin-Joshua in order to efficiently recover software process failure using logged transactions.
Regarding claim 7, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the command is embedded in a transport protocol used by the network device (see Schmeilin, col. 5 lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 8, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the transport protocol is a Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) protocol (see Schmeilin, col. 3 lines 4-7; remote direct memory access is provided).
Regarding claim 9, Schmeilin discloses network device, comprising: a network interface, to connect to a network (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 102; host device is shown); and processing circuitry, to receive, over the network, a command that requests, and to execute the command by (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 104 and col. 4 line 66-col. 5 line 6; request is received by the host and executed).
Although Schmeilin discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in a remote host and logging the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device.
Joshua teaches logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in a remote host and logging the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device (see Joshua, ¶ [0027] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joshua with that of Schmeilin in order to efficient keep track of the all the transactions related to a remote direct memory operation performed.
Although the combination of Schmeilin and Joshua disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions.
Gurajada teaches crash recovery method comprising and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions (see Gurajada, ¶ [0004] and [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gurajada with that of Schmeilin-Joshua in order to efficiently recover software process failure using logged transactions.
Regarding claim 10, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the processing circuitry is to connect a second host to the network, and wherein the memory is a memory of the second host (see Schmeilin, col. 4 lines 16-24 and Joshua, ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the command is embedded in a transport protocol used by the network device (see Schmeilin, col. 5 lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 12, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the transport protocol is a Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) protocol (see Schmeilin, col. 3 lines 4-7; remote direct memory access is provided).
Regarding claim 13, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the processing circuitry is to execute the command atomically (see Schmeilin, col. 15 lines 4-10 and col. 6 line 6-17).
Regarding claim 14, Schmeilin discloses a method, comprising: in a first network device (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 102; client network device is shown), (i) connecting a host to a network and (ii) sending over the network a command that requests (see Schmeilin, col. 3 line 21-24 and col. 4 liens 33-36; request command is sent by the client network device); and in a second network device (see Schmeilin, fig. 1 item 104; host device is shown), receiving the command over the network, and executing the command by (see Schmeilin, col. 4 line 66-col. 5 line 6; request is received by the host and executed).
Although Schmeilin discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host and logging the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device.
Joshua teaches logging of one or more actions performed by a software process running in the host and logging the one or more actions in a memory that is locally coupled to the second network device (see Joshua, ¶ [0027] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joshua with that of Schmeilin in order to efficient keep track of the all the transactions related to a remote direct memory operation performed.
Although the combination of Schmeilin and Joshua disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions.
Gurajada teaches crash recovery method comprising and in response to a failure of the software process running in the host, recover the software process using the one or more logged actions (see Gurajada, ¶ [0004] and [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gurajada with that of Schmeilin-Joshua in order to efficiently recover software process failure using logged transactions.
Regarding claim 16, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the second network device is to connect a second host to the network, and wherein logging of the one or more actions is performed independently of the second host (see Schmeilin, col. 4 lines 2-10 and Joshua, ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the second network device is to log actions for one or more additional remote hosts (see Schmeilin, col. 4 lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 19, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches wherein the second network device connects a second host to the network, and wherein logging of the one or more actions is performed independently of the second host (see Schmeilin, col. 4 lines 2-10).
Regarding claim 20, Schmeilin-Joshua-Gurajada teaches further comprising, by the second network device, logging actions for one or more additional remote hosts (see Schmeilin, col. 4 lines 16-22).
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed Ibrahim/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights