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
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 01/21/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 20 are independent claims. In Amendment, claims 1-20 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (U.S. 2019/0104206 A1) in view of Guim Bernat (U.S. 11,669,372 B2).
Re claim 1, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 a system (e.g. Figures 1-2 overall network system), comprising: one or more host processors; wherein the one or more host porcessors are to: exchange communication traffic over the network via the multiple network adapters (e.g. Figures 5 and 11 and paragraphs [0082-0083] with network traffics across network); estimate multiple communication loads, experienced respectively by the multiple network adapters (e.g. paragraphs [0037-0039 and 0214-0216] which estimate the current load of network for (re)distribution); and distribute subsequent communication traffic among the multiple network adapters, responsively to the multiple estimated communication loads (e.g. paragraphs [0037-0039, 0055, and 0073] wherein network traffics are distributed fairly among network adapters). Goel et al. fail to disclose multiple network adapters, to connect the one or more host processors to a network by (i) communicating with the one or more host processors via one or more peripheral buses and (ii) communicating with the network via one or more network interfaces. However, Guim Bernat discloses in Figures 1-7 multiple network adapters (e.g. iNIC in Figure 2), to connect the one or more host processors to a network by (i) communicating with the one or more host processors via one or more peripheral buses (e.g. Fabric 206 in Figure 2 and col. 9 line 65 to col. 10 line 40) and (ii) communicating with the network via one or more network interfaces (e.g. Figures 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add multiple network adapters, to connect the one or more host processors to a network by (i) communicating with the one or more host processors via one or more peripheral buses and (ii) communicating with the network via one or more network interfaces as conceptually seen in Gui Bernat’s invention into Goel et al.’s invention because it would enable to balancing the load among processors efficiently in the network.
Re claim 2, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more host processors are to distribute the subsequent communication traffic in accordance with a criterion that aims to balance the multiple communication loads (e.g. paragraphs [0036-003 and 0222]).
Re claim 3, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more processors are to identify uncompleted work requests associated with a network adapter among the network adapters (e.g. paragraph [0051] and claim 14), and to estimate a communication load of the network adapter by estimating at least an amount of the communication traffic corresponding to the uncompleted work requests (e.g. paragraphs [0233, 0141 and 0213]).
Re claim 4, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more host processors are to estimate the communication load based on both (i) the uncompleted work requests and (ii) one or more read requests sent to the network adapter over the network (e.g. paragraphs [0039 and 0060]).
Re claim 5, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more host processors are to exchange the communication traffic via a network adapter among the network adapters by posting work descriptors, indicative of work requests, on one or more queues associated with the network adapter (e.g. paragraphs [0175 and 0211]); the network adapter is to issue one or more completion notifications upon completing the work requests (e.g. paragraph [0197]); and the one or more processors are to estimate the communication load of the network adapter by (i) incrementing a load counter in response to posting a new work descriptor, and (ii) decrementing the load counter in response to identifying a new completion notification (e.g. paragraph [0233]). Re claim 6, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more host processors are to increment the load counter responsively to a data-size indicated in the new work descriptor (e.g. paragraph [0233]).
Re claim 7, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more host processors are to decrement the load counter responsively to a data-size indicated in the new completion notification, or in a work descriptor that corresponds to the new completion notification (e.g. paragraph [0233]).
Re claim 9, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more host processors are to exchange the communication traffic via a network adapter among the network adapters by posting work descriptors, indicative of work requests, on one or more queues associated with the network adapter (e.g. paragraphs [0175 and 0211]); the network adapter is to issue one or more completion notifications upon completing the work requests (e.g. paragraph [0197]); the one or more processors are to increment a load counter in response to posting a new work descriptor (e.g. paragraph [0233]); the network adapter is to decrement the load counter in response to issuing a new completion notification; and the one or more processors are to estimate the communication load of the network adapter based on the load counter (e.g. paragraphs [0171 and 0232-0233]).
Re claim 10, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the network adapter is to decrement the load counter responsively to a data-size indicated in the new completion notification, or in a work descriptor corresponding to the new completion notification (e.g. paragraph [0233]).
Re claim 11, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the network adapter is to perform an interim decrement of the load counter during processing of a work request (e.g. paragraph [0233]).
Re claim 14, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the network adapter is to perform an interim re-estimation of the communication load during processing of a work request (e.g. paragraphs [0037-0039] with continuous estimation).
Re claim 15, the network adapter is to perform an interim re-estimation of the communication load based on an amount of traffic sent to the network and not yet acknowledged (e.g. paragraphs [0037-0039] with continuous estimation).
Re claim 16, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the network adapters are to indicate to the one or more host processors respective actual communication rates of the network adapters (e.g. abstract and Figures 1 and 9); and the one or more host processors are to normalize the communication loads by the respective actual communication rates (e.g. paragraph [0231]).
Re claim 17, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the communication traffic is associated with multiple Virtual Lanes (VLs) or priority classes (e.g. paragraphs [0150-0151 and 0173-0174]), and wherein the one or more host processors are to estimate the communication loads and the actual communication rates separately per VL or priority class (e.g. Figures 21-22).
Re claim 19, Goel et al. disclose in Figures 1-22 the communication traffic is associated with multiple Virtual Lanes (VLs) or priority classes (e.g. paragraphs [0047 and 0168]), and wherein the one or more host processors are to estimate a communication load for a given queue, which is associated with a given VL or priority class, based on: (i) the communication load on one or more other queues that are associated with the given VL or priority class, and (ii) the communication load on one or more other queues that are associated with one or more other VLs or priority classes (e.g. Figures 21-22 and paragraphs [0150-0151 an d0173-0174]).
Re claim 20, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (U.S. 2019/0104206 A1) in view of of Guim Bernat (U.S. 11,669,372 B2) and further in view of Stabrawa et al. (U.S. 2025/0138883 A1).
Re claim 8, Goel et al. fail to disclose in Figures 1-22 the one or more processors are to increment and decrement the load counter by issuing atomic fetch-and-add instructions. However, Stabrawa et al. disclose the one or more processors are to increment and decrement the load counter by issuing atomic fetch-and-add instructions (e.g. paragraphs [0259, 0350, and 0463] disclosing atomic fetch-and-add instructions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the one or more processors are to increment and decrement the load counter by issuing atomic fetch-and-add instructions as seen in Stabrawa et al.’s invention into Goel et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently maintaining operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 14-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11669372-B2
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451