DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1–4 are presented for examination in a PCT international application filed on 12/08/2021 (PCT/JP2021/045192), and entered the national stage on 06/04/2024.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 06/04/2024 (upon national stage entry). These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
A.
5. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–------8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,659,245 B2 (“’245 Patent”), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
6. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct (nonobvious) from each other, because at least some of the subject matter claimed in the instant application is already fully disclosed in the copending applications.
For purposes of illustration, a table has been constructed below to compare the two independent method claims.
Instant Application No. 18/716,285
Issued ’245 Patent
3. An on-server data transmission method of an on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device executing:
monitoring communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application and measuring a packet arrival timing; and
waking up the APP thread and causing the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which arrival of a packet is detected and causing the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival.
7. A server delay control method of a server delay controller that is arranged in a user space, implemented by a computer when the computer executes instructions, and starts a thread that monitors packet arrival using a polling model, the server delay controller executing:
monitoring packet arrival from an interface unit;
referring to a packet held in a ring buffer when a packet arrives and executing harvesting to delete an entry of a corresponding queue from the ring buffer; putting the thread to sleep in a case in which a packet does not arrive for a predetermined period, and canceling the sleep of the thread through a hardware interrupt at a time of packet arrival; and
periodically waking up the thread at a time of sleep or waking up the thread immediately before the packet arrival in accordance with a packet arrival timing.
B.
7. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–------7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,498,964 B2 (“’964 Patent”), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
8. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct (nonobvious) from each other, because at least some of the subject matter claimed in the instant application is already fully disclosed in the copending applications.
For purposes of illustration, a table has been constructed below to compare the two independent method claims.
Instant Application No. 18/716,285
Issued ’964 Patent
3. An on-server data transmission method of an on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device executing:
monitoring communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application and measuring a packet arrival timing; and
waking up the APP thread and causing the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which arrival of a packet is detected and causing the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival.
7. A server delay control method of a server delay controller that is arranged in a kernel space of an OS, implemented by a computer when the computer executes instructions, and starts a thread that monitors packet arrival using a polling model, the server delay controller executing:
monitoring a poll list that registers network device information indicating which device a hardware interrupt from an interface unit comes from;
referring to a packet held in a ring buffer and harvesting of deleting an entry of a corresponding queue from the ring buffer on a basis of processing to be performed next in a case where a packet has arrived;
making the thread sleep in a case where no packet arrives for a predetermined period, and cancelling the sleep of the thread with a hardware interrupt when the packet arrives;
storing number of times of hardware interrupt; and
calculating a hardware (HW) interrupt frequency on a basis of number of times of hardware interrupt, and controlling HW interrupt permission or prohibition by the making the thread sleep on a basis of the HW interrupt frequency calculated.
C.
9. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–10 of Copending Application No. 18/864,727 (published as US 2025/0328372 A1).
10. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct (nonobvious) from each other, because at least some of the subject matter claimed in the instant application is already fully disclosed in the Copending Application No. 18/864,727.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For purposes of illustration, a table has been constructed below to compare the two independent method claims.
Instant Application No. 18/716,285
Copending Application No. 18/864,727
3. An on-server data transmission method of an on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device executing:
monitoring communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application and measuring a packet arrival timing; and
waking up the APP thread and causing the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which arrival of a packet is detected and causing the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival.
7. A server delay control method of a server delay control device that is set up in either one of a kernel space of an OS and a user space and started as a thread to use a polling model to monitor an arriving packet, wherein the thread has operation modes of a sleep control mode in which the thread is put to sleep and a constantly busy poll mode in which the thread is kept constantly busy polling, and the server delay control method comprises: a step of measuring traffic inflow frequency; and a step of switching an operation mode of the thread between the sleep control mode and the constantly busy poll mode, on the basis of the measured traffic inflow frequency.
D.
11. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–9 of Copending Application No. 18/856,664 (published as US 2025/0233808 A1).
12. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct (nonobvious) from each other, because at least some of the subject matter claimed in the instant application is already fully disclosed in the Copending Application No. 18/856,664.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For purposes of illustration, a table has been constructed below to compare the two independent method claims.
Instant Application No. 18/716,285
Copending Application No. 18/856,664
3. An on-server data transmission method of an on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device executing:
monitoring communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application and measuring a packet arrival timing; and
waking up the APP thread and causing the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which arrival of a packet is detected and causing the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival.
7. A server delay control method of a server delay controller that is arranged in a user space, implemented by a computer when the computer executes instructions, and starts a thread that monitors packet arrival using a polling model, the server delay controller executing: monitoring packet arrival from an interface unit; referring to a packet held in a ring buffer when a packet arrives and executing harvesting to delete an entry of a corresponding queue from the ring buffer; putting the thread to sleep in a case in which a packet does not arrive for a predetermined period, and canceling the sleep of the thread through a hardware interrupt at a time of packet arrival; and periodically waking up the thread at a time of sleep or waking up the thread immediately before the packet arrival in accordance with a packet arrival timing.
E.
13. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–8 of Copending Application No. 18/832,757 (published as US 2025/0097134 A1).
14. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct (nonobvious) from each other, because at least some of the subject matter claimed in the instant application is already fully disclosed in the Copending Application No. 18/832,757.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For purposes of illustration, a table has been constructed below to compare the two independent method claims.
Instant Application No. 18/716,285
Copending Application No. 18/832,757
3. An on-server data transmission method of an on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device executing:
monitoring communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application and measuring a packet arrival timing; and
waking up the APP thread and causing the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which arrival of a packet is detected and causing the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival.
7. A server delay control method by a server delay control device that is disposed in a user space and starts a thread that monitors packet arrival using a polling model, wherein the server delay control device performs steps of: monitoring a reception queue of a device by polling and acquiring data when a packet has arrived; notifying an application program of the data that has been acquired and passing the data to the application program; and causing the thread to sleep when no packet arrives for a predetermined period and cancelling sleep of the thread by a hardware interrupt when a packet has arrived and controlling a timing of the sleep by permitting the hardware interrupt based on characteristics of the application program.
F.
15. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–22 of Copending Application No. 18/281,597 (published as US 2024/0160468 A1).
16. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct (nonobvious) from each other, because at least some of the subject matter claimed in the instant application is already fully disclosed in the Copending Application No. 18/281,597.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For purposes of illustration, a table has been constructed below to compare the two independent method claims.
Instant Application No. 18/716,285
Copending Application No. 18/281,597
3. An on-server data transmission method of an on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device executing:
monitoring communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application and measuring a packet arrival timing; and
waking up the APP thread and causing the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which arrival of a packet is detected and causing the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival.
21. A server delay control method of a server delay control device for performing, on a server deployed on a computer comprising one or more hardware processors, packet transfer from an interface part of the computer, the server comprising an OS and implemented using one or more of the one or more hardware processors, the server delay control device implemented using one or more of the one or more hardware processors, the OS comprising: a kernel in which the server delay control device is deployed; a ring buffer managed by the kernel, in a memory space in which the server deploys the OS; and a poll list in which information on a net device is registered, the information on the net device being indicative of which device a hardware interrupt from an interface part comes from, the server delay control method comprising steps of: monitoring, by a thread spawned in the kernel by the server delay control device, the poll list to monitor a packet arrival according to a polling model; when a packet has arrived, referencing, by the server delay control device, the packet held in the ring buffer, and performing, by the server delay control device, dequeuing to remove a corresponding queue entry from the ring buffer; and when there is no packet arrival over a predetermined period of time, causing, by the server delay control device, the thread to sleep and, when a packet arrives, canceling, by a hardware interrupt handler implemented in the server delay control device, the sleep of the thread.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
17. 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
18. 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), 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:
a. “a packet arrival monitor,” and
b. “polling controller,” recited in claim 1,
c. “pseudo device,” and
d. “proxy,” recited in claim 2,
each configured to or capable of being configured to perform respective claimed functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
19. Claim limitations:
a. “a packet arrival monitor,” and
b. “polling controller,” recited in claim 1,
c. “pseudo device,” and
d. “proxy,” recited in claim 2,
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this instance, and as filed, the disclosure is either devoid of any STRUCTURE that performs the function in the claims,
(Here, the disclosure simply does not describe or limit the claimed “data eraser apparatus” or “processing resource” to a known structure or class of structure (e.g. a CPU) capable of performing the claimed function (method) referred in claim 1),
or (to the extent that a structure is sufficiently disclosed) that the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim.
20. Therefore, claims 1–2 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner’s Remarks
21. Examiner refers to and explicitly cites particular pages, sections, figures, paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims to the extent practicable to streamline prosecution.
Although the cited portions of the references are representative of the best teachings in the art and are applied to meet the specific limitations of the claims, other uncited but related teachings of the references may be equally applicable as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses to the rejections, the Applicant fully considers not only the cited portions of the references, but also the references in their entirety, as potentially teaching, suggesting or rendering obvious all or one or more aspects of the claimed invention.
Abbreviations
22. Where appropriate, the following abbreviations will be used when referencing Applicant’s submissions and specific teachings of the reference(s):
i. figure / figures: Fig. / Figs.
ii. column / columns: Col. / Cols.
iii. page / pages: p. / pp.
References Cited
23. (A) Tsirkin, US 2018/0241655 A1 (“Tsirkin”).
(B) Dinan et al., US 8,060,054 B1 (“Dinan”).
(C) Hansalia, US 2021/0405897 A1 (“Hansalia”).
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
24. 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.
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.
A.
25. Claims 1 and 3–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (A) Tsirkin in view of (B) Dinan.
See “References Cited” section, above, for full citations of references.
26. Regarding claim 1, (A) Tsirkin teaches/suggests the invention substantially as claimed, including:
“An on-server data transmission device that transmits data from a HW (Hardware) device including an accelerator to an application when the HW device is used for the application, the on-server data transmission device comprising:
(¶ 16: system 100 may include one or more interconnected nodes 110A-D. Each node 110A-B may in turn include one or more physical processors (e.g., CPU 120A-D) communicatively coupled to memory devices (e.g., MD 130A-C) and input/output devices (e.g., I/O 140A-B). Node 110C may include a hardware device 150 ... hardware device (e.g., 150) may include a network device (e.g., a network adapter or any other component that connects a computer to a computer network), a peripheral component interconnect (PCI) device, storage devices, disk drives, sound or video adaptors;
¶ 17: a multi-core processor that may simultaneously execute multiple instructions;
¶ 11: when a new packet for the forwarding thread arrives in a receive queue of a NIC, the driver thread may retrieve the new packet from the receive queue and submit the new packet to a data structure;
¶ 21: an example application 170A may include a driver thread 220 and forwarding threads 230A-C. An example application may include one or more driver threads and one or more forwarding threads. In an example, the application 170A may include a Data Plane Development Kit (DPDK) 21);
at least one processor with memory,
(¶ 16: one or more physical processors (e.g., CPU 120A-D) communicatively coupled to memory devices (e.g., MD 130A-C);
¶ 41: computer readable non-transitory storage medium);
a packet arrival monitor configured to monitor communication between the HW device and an APP (application) thread corresponding to the application ...; and
(¶ 11: At a later time after the memory wait instruction has been executed on the CPU, when a new packet for the forwarding thread arrives in a receive queue of a NIC, the driver thread may retrieve the new packet from the receive queue and submit the new packet to a data structure;
¶ 21: the DPDK 210 may include a poll mode driver configured to poll the NIC 155 (i.e., scanning the NIC 155 whether packets arrived or not) or the receive queue 157 without using interrupts;
¶ 23: driver thread 220 may be configured to handle the receive queue 157 of the NIC 155. For example, the driver thread 220 may poll the receive queue 157 to check whether a new packet has arrived, notify the forwarding threads 230A-C about the arrival of the new packet, and forward the new packet to the forwarding threads 230A-C);
a polling controller configured to wake up the App thread and causes the APP thread to perform packet processing at a time of packet arrival at which the packet arrival monitoring unit detects the packet arrival; and causes the APP thread to sleep when there is no packet arrival”
(¶ 11: the driver thread may update the designated memory location, which may cause the forwarding thread and the CPU to wake up out of the halt state;
¶ 36: The driver thread 220 may update the designated memory location (blocks 436 & 438), which may cause the first forwarding thread 230A and the first CPU to wake up out of the halt state (block 440). Then, the forwarding thread 230A may retrieve the new packet from the data structure (blocks 442 & 444);
¶ 9: forwarding thread may typically block (i.e., the CPU on which the forwarding thread was running may be halted and enter into a lower power state) when there are no packets to handle;
¶ 10: If it is determined that no new packet has arrived, the system call may cause the operating system to execute a memory wait instruction ( e.g., MWAIT instruction) on the CPU, which may cause the forwarding thread and the CPU to enter a halt state).
Tsirkin does not teach “measures a packet arrival timing.”
(B) Dinan, in the context of Tsirkin’s teachings, however teaches or suggests implementing:
“measures a packet arrival timing”
(Col. 8, lines 62–67: during a communication session ... determine the current packet inter-arrival time of the communication session, and then use the current packet inter-arrival time to select one of the two or more power-saving modes;
Col. 10, lines 4–8: determining the packet inter-arrival time may alternatively or additionally involve measuring the actual period of time between arrivals of two or more successive packets, and comparing this measured interarrival time to a threshold period of time;
Col. 10, lines 42–48: access network may maintain a database for tracking packet inter-arrival times and/or data rates for various types of communications (e.g., VoIP, real-time video, etc.). The historical packet inter-arrival time information stored in the database may then be used to predict when high-activity and/or low-activity periods will occur, and proactively determine when a communication session is entering a high-activity).
Dinan teaches measuring (monitoring) inter-arrival times of communication packets, thus is from the same field of endeavor and/or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of (B) Dinan with those of (A) Tsirkin to monitor or measure inter-arrival times of packets. The motivation or advantage to do so is to predict and proactively determine a period when forwarding thread and the CPU may be placed into a halt state to conserve power.
27. Regarding claim 3, it is the corresponding method claim reciting similar limitations of commensurate scope as the system (device) of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above.
28. Regarding claim 4, it is the corresponding computer program product claim reciting similar limitations of commensurate scope as the system (device) of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above.
B.
29. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (A) Tsirkin in view of (B) Dinan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (C) Hansalia.
30. Regarding claim 2, Tsirkin and Dinan do not teach “a pseudo device configured to correspond to a physical queue and causes to cause the APP thread to perform packet processing by using a virtual queue instead of the physical queue of the HW device and thereby connects to connect the HW device to the application; and a proxy configured to dynamically changes change connection between the virtual queue and the physical queue.”
(C) Hansalia, in the context of Tsirkin and Dinan’s teachings, however teaches or suggests implementing:
“a pseudo device configured to correspond to a physical queue and causes to cause the APP thread to perform packet processing by using a virtual queue instead of the physical queue of the HW device and thereby connects to connect the HW device to the application; and
(Figs. 5A and 5B, and ¶ 69: When a consumer calls the dequeue API for dequeuing data from a virtual elastic queue, it may access the corresponding VQ-node may retrieve the PQ-node corresponding to head-end physical queue 420 (which is physical queue 412-1);
¶ 8: the virtual elastic queue may include a virtual queue and one or more physical queues, where the virtual queue provides a mapping to the one or more physical queues, and where a data structure may represent queue elements in the one or more physical queues. Notably, the virtual queue may point to the one or more physical queues, and the one or more physical queues may point to physical queue memory where data elements are enqueued and dequeued);
a proxy configured to dynamically changes change connection between the virtual queue and the physical queue”
(¶ 7: implement a virtual elastic queue in the memory, where, as needed, the virtual elastic queue grows in size to accommodate more queue elements, or shrinks in size to free up queue-element capacity and space in the memory;
¶ 10: when data is enqueued in the virtual elastic queue and the one or more physical queues are full, a new physical queue is added to the one or more physical queues with a logical extension from a last queue element associated with the last physical queue;
¶ 11: the first physical queue is removed from the one or more physical queues, thereby shrinking the virtual elastic queue).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of (C) Hansalia with those of (A) Tsirkin and (B) Dinan to implement the receive queue using a virtual queue structure. The motivation or advantage to do so is to provide for the dynamic and optimal allocation of physical memory (resources) based on demand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Vyas et al., US 2013/0329732 A1, teaching filtering incoming network packets to an electronic device.
(b) Vugenfirer et al., US 2007/0067445 A1, teaching remote computer wake-up for network applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN C WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M..
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, Aimee J. Li can be reached on (571)272-4169. 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.
/BENJAMIN C WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights