DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 02/24/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 6, 8 - 9, 11, 18, and the submission of new claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doshi et al (US 2017/0185643; hereinafter Doshi) in view of Lesartre et al (US 20200356497; hereinafter Lesartre).
Regarding claim 1, Doshi discloses a processing method (figs. 5 - 6), comprising:
determining, by a transmitting device, a first order flag for a first transaction (fig. 5; paragraphs [0021], [0032]; Doshi discloses techniques to offload a sequence of transactions including dependent transactions and independent transactions from the host computing platform 110 to the storage device 120. A dependent transaction may be any transaction having at least one write-request and one dependency from another transaction), wherein the first order flag indicates a dependency relationship between different transactions (paragraphs [0032], [0041]; Doshi discloses that a DAG is generally used to define relationships between nodes and forms a partial order. A collection of tasks, such as transactions, that must be ordered into a sequence, subject to constraints that certain tasks must be performed earlier than others, may be represented as a DAG. A node may represent a transaction and each edge may represent a constraint or dependency); and
sending, to a receiving device by the transmitting device, a first transaction packet that comprises the first order flag (508, fig. 5; paragraph [0046], [0110]; Doshi discloses that each transaction may be processed using a breadth-first or a depth-first traversal. In embodiments, the transactions may be processed in an ordered sequence based on priority. For example, one or more transactions may be indicated as having a higher priority than another transaction), wherein the receiving device processes the first transaction based on the first order flag (512, fig. 5; paragraph [0046]; Doshi discloses that these transactions may be processed before the other transaction as long as no dependency requirements are broken).
Doshi discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose that the first order flag is carried in a packet header of the first transaction packet.
Lesartre et al, in analogous art, discloses that the first order flag is carried in a packet header of the first transaction packet (paragraphs [0025], [0030], [0059], and [0075]; Lesartre discloses that a metadata tag, such as an information element in a write request packet header may indicate whether the write request is of the first transaction class or the second transaction class).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Doshi by showing that the first order flag is carried in a packet header of the first transaction packet as evidenced by Lesartre for the purpose of tracking the dependency of a transaction request of the second transaction class sent on the fabric; thereby providing higher performance and reliability.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doshi et al (US 2017/0185643; hereinafter Doshi) in view of Lesartre et al (US 20200356497; hereinafter Lesartre), and further in view of Blackshear et al (US 2020/0394648; hereinafter Blackshear).
Regarding claim 2, Doshi and Lesartre disclose all the limitations in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the first order flag at least comprises at least any one of the following:
a forward dependent order flag, indicating that a current transaction cannot precede a previous transaction when being executed by the receiving device, wherein a message sequence number (MSN) of the previous transaction is less than an MSN of the current transaction;
a backward blocking order flag, indicating that the current transaction cannot be preceded by a subsequent transaction when being executed by the receiving device, wherein an MSN of the subsequent transaction is greater than the MSN of the current transaction;
a non-dependent order flag, indicating that the current transaction has neither forward dependency nor backward blocking; [[and]] or
a strongly dependent order flag, indicating that the current transaction has both forward dependency and backward blocking.
Blackshear, in an analogous art, discloses that wherein the first order flag at least comprises at least any one of the following:
a strongly dependent order flag, indicating that the current transaction has both forward dependency and backward blocking (paragraphs [0463], [0467]; Blackshear discloses that the execution manager associated with a given transaction can additionally manage a forward dependency graph and a backward dependency graph specific to that transaction. The execution manager can determine if the transaction has a backward dependency and, if not, can execute the transaction. If a backward dependency exists, the execution manager can wait to execute the transaction until after receiving a broadcast indicating that the transactions upon which the given transaction is forwardly dependent have been executed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Doshi and Lesartre by showing that wherein the first order flag at least comprises that a strongly dependent order flag, indicating that the current transaction has both forward dependency and backward blocking as evidenced by Blackshear for the purpose of providing more flexibility with respect to transaction execution across distributed computer networks.
Regarding claim 20, Doshi and Lesartre discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein processing, by the receiving device, the first transaction based on the first order flag comprises:
When execution of a previous transaction on which the first transaction depends is completed based on the first order flag, executing, by the receiving device, the first transaction (Lesartre: paragraphs [0027], [0029 – 0030], [0033]). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5, 7 - 8, 11 – 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 – 10, and 18 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 2. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 2 apply in claims 9 – 10, and 18. Therefore, claims 9 – 10, and 18 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457