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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of PCT/JP2021/036491 filed 10/01/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/12/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A computation offloading system comprising a client and a server connected to the client via a network and an NIC (Network Interface Card) functional unit, and wherein the client is configured to offload specific processing of an application to an accelerator disposed in the server to perform computation, wherein the NIC functional unit includes: …" in lines 1-6. It is recommended to add a colon “:” after comprising, to separate the preamble from the body of the claim.
Please change to: “A computation offloading system comprising: a client and a server connected to the client via a network and an NIC (Network Interface Card) functional unit, and wherein the client is configured to offload specific processing of an application to an accelerator disposed in the server to perform computation), wherein the NIC functional unit includes: …"
Claim 5 is also objected for the same reason as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 2-4 are also objected to since they are dependent on the objected base independent claim 1 as set forth above.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an accelerator function and argument data parsing unit”, “a data transfer unit”, and, “an accelerator function and return value data packetization unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 limitation: “an accelerator function and argument data parsing unit”– see Fig.12, ACC function data parsing unit 310, “a data transfer unit” – see Fig.12, a data transfer unit 320, and, “an accelerator function and return value data packetization unit” – see Fig. 12, an ACC function and return value data packetization unit) 330.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van et al. (WO 03/036465), in view of Takuma (US Pub. No.: 2020/0310937) and further in view of Iwata et al (Performance Improvement and Evaluations of Serialization Protocols Using FPGA NICs, IEICE Technical Report, 2018-07-30).
As per claim 1, Van disclose A computation offloading system comprising a client and a server connected to the client via a network and an NIC (Network Interface Card) functional unit (see page 4, Fig.2, in Fig. 2, the processes 200, 210 that communicate via RPC are shown as separated by a processor boundary, indicated with a dashed line. This boundary indicates that communication takes place from one processor to another. The two processors 200, 210 might be in two entirely different computer systems, connected via a network, but might also be in one single computer system. The processor boundary could also be virtual; a single processor could switch between the tasks for the client and for the server), wherein
the NIC functional unit includes:
an accelerator function and argument data parsing unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to deserialize packet data input from the client side according to a predetermined protocol format and obtain a function name and multiple arguments (see Fig.2, page 3 line 20 – page 4 line 9, a Remote Procedure, RPC 210, RPCs normally handle calling functions in another process/processor, a remote procedure call (RPC) system comprising a client and a server connected through a network to the client, wherein the client offloads specific processing of an application to the server to perform arithmetic processing);
a data transfer unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to transfer the data deserialized by the accelerator function and argument data parsing unit to the server (see Fig.2, page 3 line 20 – page 4 line 9, a proxy 201 (a local representative for a remote service), a proxy for the client marshals (corresponding to the "serializing" of the present application), according to the format of a
prescribed protocol, arguments and a function ID (corresponding to the "function name" of the
present application) input from a client process, and further packetizes the arguments and the
function ID as payload, and unmarshals (corresponding to the "deserializing" of the present application), according to the format of a prescribed protocol, packet data input from a server process to acquire return arguments and a return value, and transfers the return arguments and the return value to the client process); and
an accelerator function and return value data packetization unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to serialize a function name and arguments input from the accelerator according to a predetermined protocol format and packetize the function name and arguments as a payload (see Fig.2, page 3 line 20 – page 4 line 9, a stub 221, a stub for the server unmarshals, according to the format of a prescribed protocol, packet data input from the client process to acquire arguments and a function ID, and transfers the arguments and the function ID to the server process, and marshals, according to the format of a prescribed protocol, return arguments and a return value input from the server process, and further packetizes the return arguments and the return value as payload).
Van however does not explicitly disclose the feature in which specific processing of an application is offloaded to an "accelerator disposed in a server",
Takeda however disclose a feature in which a server for an RPC offloads processing to an accelerator
disposed in the server (see Fig.1, para. 0053, the RPC library 223 is a library used for the RPC. In the RPC library 223, an RPC server 2231 and a reexecution RPC server 2232 are generated by the code generator 155 of the host PC 10. Upon receipt of a function process request issued by the RPC client 1541, the RPC server 2231 performs the function process. The function is offload the process onto the hardware accelerator, the DSP, by calling the image processing library 222. At the initial execution, the RPC server 2231 records a history of called functions with respect to each RPC node. The association relationship between the function and the RPC node is described in the IDL, for example. The RPC server 2231 has a snapshot function of entirely storing the state at the time. The RPC server 2231 obtains inputs (argument(s) and return value(s)) of the function in immediately previous execution, with respect to each called function, and stores the inputs as a snapshot 22311),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of a feature in which a server for an RPC offloads processing to an accelerator disposed in the server, as taught by Takeda, in the system of Van, so as to enable a plurality of processes offloaded on the board to be reconfigured in a pipelined manner, and the parallel processes with resource contention are reproduced and profiled, thereby enabling the performance in a product-embedded case to be more correctly estimated, see Takeda, paragraphs 3-4, 0128-0129.
Although Van disclose the return arguments, and that the function ID is included in a request from the client server, a person skilled in the art could easily conceive the feature in which the function ID is also included in a response from the server to the client.
Van however does not explicitly disclose the feature in which serializing or deserializing is performed by an "NIC functional part".
Iwata however disclose a feature in which serializing or deserializing is performed by an "NIC functional part" (see sections 3 and 4, performing serializing (marshaling) or deserializing (unmarshaling)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of feature in which serializing or deserializing is performed by an "NIC functional part", as taught by Iwata, in the system of Van and Takeda, so as to reduce power consumption or enhancing processing capability. thus a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of applying the feature disclosed in Iwata to the invention, to arrive at the feature in which serializing or deserializing is performed by an FPGA NIC, see Iwata, sections 3-4.
As per claim 2, the combination of Van, Takeda and Iwata disclose the computation offloading system according to claim 1.
Van further disclose wherein the NIC functional unit is disposed on the server side, and the data transfer unit is configured to transfer the data deserialized by the accelerator function and argument data parsing unit to the server (see Fig.2, page 3 line 20 – page 4 line 9, a remote procedure call (RPC) system comprising a client and a server connected through a network to the client, wherein the client offloads specific processing of an application to the server to perform arithmetic processing); and
Takeda further disclose wherein the NIC functional unit is disposed on the server side, and the data transfer unit is configured to transfer the data deserialized by the accelerator function and argument data parsing unit to the serve see Fig.1, para. 0053, the RPC library 223 is a library used for the RPC. In the RPC library 223, an RPC server 2231 and a reexecution RPC server 2232 are generated by the code generator 155 of the host PC 10. Upon receipt of a function process request issued by the RPC client 1541, the RPC server 2231 performs the function process. The function is offload the process onto the hardware accelerator, the DSP, by calling the image processing library 222).
As per claim 3, the combination of Van, Takeda and Iwata disclose the computation offloading system according to claim 1.
Van further disclose wherein the NIC functional unit is disposed on the client side, and the data transfer unit is configured to transfer the data deserialized by the accelerator function and argument data parsing unit to the client (see Fig.2, page 3 line 20 – page 4 line 9, a proxy 201 (a local representative for a remote service), a proxy for the client marshals (corresponding to the "serializing" of the present application), according to the format of a prescribed protocol, arguments and a function ID (corresponding to the "function name" of the present application) input from a client process, and further packetizes the arguments and the function ID as payload, and unmarshals (corresponding to the "deserializing" of the present application)), and
Iwata however disclose a wherein the NIC functional unit is disposed on the client side, and the data transfer unit is configured to transfer the data deserialized by the accelerator function and argument data parsing unit to the client (see sections 3 and 4, performing serializing (marshaling) or deserializing (unmarshaling) ).
As per claim 5, claim 5 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2022/0156287) - (see paras. 23, a system including a CPU for offloading one or more portions of a shuffle intensive application operation (i.e. processing of an application) from a host (i.e. client) to a storage node (i.e. server) (see para. 6 and 52-54)(e.g. storage node may operate as server), wherein offloading operation may be performed by an accelerator at a storage node (i.e. accelerator disposed in the server) (see also, para. 54, wherein accelerator performs operations in general purpose or special purpose CPU (i.e. arithmetic processing)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1335. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469