DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claim rejections based on prior art
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/17/2025 with respect to claims 1-6 and 11-24 have been fully considered but are moot in view of newly cited reference.
Note, even though prosecution is now closed, to help expedite any further potential prosecution of this application, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner to discuss the invention, and a potential allowance.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claim 1-6 and 11-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Norrie et al. (US pub. # 2024/0104045), hereinafter, “Norrie”, in view of Regula et al. (US pub. # 2015/0281126), hereinafter, “Regula”.
3. As per claim 1, Norrie discloses a method comprising: identifying a doorbell event in a transmitting peer (see paragraphs 0099 and 0100, particularly paragraph 0132, which discloses “the second write packet is sourced from the first ghost device in the first hierarchy and destinated to the second host in the second hierarchy”); representing the doorbell event with a ‘message’ having a destination address (see paragraphs 0099, 0100 and 0132); sending the ‘message/write’ from the transmitting peer to a destination peer (see paragraph 0102, which discloses “the ghost EP server of hierarchy 1 parses the descriptor fetched from hierarchy 2, and modifies the addresses in the descriptor such that the modified addresses can be later matched as the addresses of host server 0” and paragraph 0103, which discloses “the ghost EP server of hierarchy 1 writes the appropriate doorbell/message to the real EP to process the request. The real EP of hierarchy 1 then fetches the descriptor in the ghost EP server with the modified address. Since both the real EP and ghost EP server reside in hierarchy 1, these operations are normal PCIe transactions within the same hierarchy”); and identifying, at the destination peer, a notification based on the message (see paragraphs 0100-0103, and 0132, particularly 0100, which discloses “the PCIe switch may also generate a write log entry and interrupt to aid in notification to the ghost EP server”).
Norrie fails to teach zero byte write (ZBW) having a destination address and zero bytes of payload data.
However, Regula, an analogous art, teaches zero byte write (ZBW) having a destination address (see paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123) and zero bytes of payload data (see paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modified Norrie’ system by including zero byte write (ZBW) and zero bytes of payload data because the modification would transfer data over a switch fabric with at least one switch with an embedded network class endpoint device (see paragraph 0005 of Regula), avoid congestion, and allow dynamic routing (see paragraph 0033 of Regula).
4. As per claim 2, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The method of Claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], comprising: identifying a doorbell register write in the transmitting peer, the write being addressed to a memory window (see paragraphs 0059 and 0099-0100 of Norrie); and generating the ZBW to the destination peer window (see paragraphs 0059, 0099-0100 and 0129-0135 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
5. As per claim 3, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The method of Claim 2” [See rejection to claim 2 above], comprising sending the ZBW over a peripheral computer interconnect express (PCIe) fabric (see paragraphs 0099-0103 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
6. As per claims 4 and 17, Norrie discloses, comprising associating the doorbell event with a unique, one-to-one or many-to-one mapping of local system interrupts (see paragraphs 0052-0056 and 0099-0100).
7. As per claims 5 and 18, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The method of Claim 1” [See rejection to claim 1 above], comprising: mapping a memory window at the destination peer receiving the ZBW to a local doorbell event; and posting the doorbell event to a doorbell counter (see paragraphs 0099-0103 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
8. As per claims 6 and 19, Norrie discloses, comprising: responsive to determining that the doorbell event is enabled to interrupt the host, triggering a local host interrupt (see paragraphs 0099-0100).
9. As per claim 11, Norrie discloses an apparatus (see paragraphs 0141-0145), comprising: at least one transmitting peer (see paragraphs 0129-0130, particularly “sharing peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) devices across multiple host servers such that a first host in a first hierarchy”); at least one destination peer (see paragraph 0132, which discloses “the switch rewrites and converts the first write packet into a second write packet based on the matching of the first write request. The second write packet is sourced from the first ghost device in the first hierarchy and destinated to the second host in the second hierarchy” and paragraph 0133, which discloses “the second host is configured as a ghost endpoint server to communicate with an endpoint in the second hierarchy to write the content to the memory range in the second hierarchy”); at least one peripheral computer interconnect express (PCIe) fabric communicatively coupling the transmitting peer to the destination peer (see paragraphs 0129-0130 and 0134-0135); the transmitting peer comprising circuitry configured for: identifying a doorbell event [see paragraph 0099, which discloses “the host CPU in hierarchy 2 places a message in a shared memory region for another, e.g., the host CPU in hierarchy 1, to read and clear the interrupt. That is, host server 0 in hierarchy 2 writes a doorbell to its ghost device, and the ghost device triggers a descriptor fetch and a subsequent DMA fetch” and paragraph 0100, which discloses “the example doorbell transaction starts with a doorbell ghost write. Host server 0 writes the doorbell in the BAR address of a ghost control plane EP, where the source ID (i.e., host server 0) and destination address (e.g., BAR address of ghost control plane EP) are within the same hierarchy 2”]; representing the doorbell event with a ‘message’ having a destination address (see paragraphs 0099-0100 and 0132); and sending the ‘message’ from the transmitting peer to the destination peer (see paragraphs 0100-0103 and 0132, particularly, “the PCIe switch may also generate a write log entry and interrupt to aid in notification to the ghost EP server” and “the second write packet is sourced from the first ghost device in the first hierarchy and destinated to the second host in the second hierarchy”).
Norrie fails to teach zero byte write (ZBW) having a destination address and zero bytes of payload data.
However, Regula, an analogous art, teaches zero byte write (ZBW) having a destination address (see paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123) and zero bytes of payload data (see paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modified Norrie’ system by including zero byte write (ZBW) and zero bytes of payload data because the modification would transfer data over a switch fabric with at least one switch with an embedded network class endpoint device (see paragraph 0005 of Regula), avoid congestion, and allow dynamic routing (see paragraph 0033 of Regula).
10. As per claim 12, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The apparatus of claim 11” [See rejection to claim 11 above], wherein the destination peer comprises circuitry configured for: identifying a notification based on the ZBW (see paragraphs 0100-0103 and 0132 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
11. As per claim 13, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The apparatus of claim 11” [See rejection to claim 11 above], wherein the circuitry of the transmitting peer is configured for: sending the ZBW over the PCIe fabric (see paragraphs 0100-0103, 0132 and 01340135 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
12. As per claim 14, Norrie discloses wherein the circuitry of the transmitting peer is configured for: identifying a write, the write being addressed to a memory window; and generating a doorbell event for the memory window (see paragraphs 0059 and 0099-0100).
13. As per claim 15, Norrie discloses wherein the circuitry of the transmitting peer is configured for: responsive to writing the doorbell event to a doorbell register, mapping a destination ID associated with the doorbell event to a memory window of the destination peer, the memory window being shared with the transmitting peer; and sending the doorbell event to the memory window of the destination peer (see paragraphs 0059, 0099-0103 and 0132-0135).
14. As per claim 16, Norrie discloses wherein the circuitry of the transmitting peer is configured for: sending the doorbell event to the destination peer as a regular PCIe write transaction (see paragraphs 0099-0103).
15. As per claim 20, Norrie discloses a network comprising: a transmitting host coupled to a peripheral computer interconnect express (PCIe) fabric over a first PCIe link and comprising a first messaging direct memory access endpoint (see paragraphs 0129-0130), the transmitting host comprising: a doorbell register (see paragraph 0059 and 0099-0100); and a first processor to transmit a ‘message’ having a destination address (see paragraphs 0099-0100 and 0132); a destination host coupled to the PCIe fabric over a second PCIe link and comprising a second messaging direct memory access endpoint (see paragraphs 0099-0100 and 0132), the destination host comprising: a memory window to receive the ‘message’ (see paragraphs 0059 0099-0100 and 0129-0135); and a doorbell counter to maintain a list of received ‘message’ (see paragraph 0100); and a management host coupled to the PCIe fabric (see paragraphs 0052 and 0109).
Norrie fails to teach zero byte write (ZBW) having a destination address and zero bytes of payload data.
However, Regula, an analogous art, teaches zero byte write (ZBW) having a destination address (see paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123) and zero bytes of payload data (see paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modified Norrie’ system by including zero byte write (ZBW) and zero bytes of payload data because the modification would transfer data over a switch fabric with at least one switch with an embedded network class endpoint device (see paragraph 0005 of Regula), avoid congestion, and allow dynamic routing (see paragraph 0033 of Regula).
16. As per claim 21, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The network of claim 20” [See rejection to claim 20 above] wherein the management host manages the transfer of the ZBW from the first processor of the transmitting host to the memory window of the destination host (see paragraphs 0059, 0099-0100 and 0129-0135 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
17. As per claim 22, Norrie discloses wherein the first PCle link and the second PCIe link are non-transparent bridges (see paragraph 0099).
18. As per claim 23, Norrie discloses wherein the first PCIe link and the second PCIe link are configured by the management host (see paragraph 0121).
19. As per claim 24, the combination of Norrie and Regula discloses “The network of claim 23” [See rejection to claim 23 above] wherein the first processor in the transmitting host is not capable of writing the ZBW to the memory window of the destination host (see paragraphs 0059, 0099-0100 and 0129-0135 of Norrie and paragraphs 0103, 0116 and 0122-0123 of Regula).
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
a(1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-6 and 11-24 have received a final action on the merits.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ernest Unelus whose telephone number is (571) 272-8596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
IMPORTANT NOTE
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Mr. Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached at the following telephone number: Area Code (571) 270-1023.
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).
/Ernest Unelus/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181