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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Southworth et al. (Southworth) (US 2023/0123387) (of record) in view of Wandler et al. (Wandler) (US 2019/0044861).
As to claim 1, Southworth discloses a method for remote direct memory access (RDMA) communication, the method comprising:
transmitting, from a first device to a second device via a network, a first RDMA message (paragraph 15-16, 42, 44);
storing, by the first device, a transmit byte count of a total number of bytes transmitted in the first RDMA message (paragraph 15-17, 27, 44-46);
receiving, by the first device from the second device, a second RDMA message associated with the first RDMA message, the second RDMA message comprising a receive byte count of a total number of bytes of the first RDMA message received by the second device (paragraph 17, 27, 45);
determining, by the first device, a size of a congestion window on the network based on the transmit byte count and the receive byte count (paragraph 17, 27, 44-46).
While Southworth discloses congestion notification packets, Southworth fails to specifically disclose wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets.
In an analogous art, Wandler discloses a system for remote direct memory access (RDMA) communication (Fig. 1-2; paragraph 15, 22-24) which will transmit, from a first device to a second device via a network, a first RDMA message (210, paragraph 22-26) and receive, by the first device from the second device, a second RDMA message associated with the first RDMA message, wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics (RDMA ACK, 212; paragraph 15, 22-26) and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets (congestion window determined based upon RDMA ACK header information; paragraph 15, 22-26) so as to save network bandwidth by providing congestion control without using congestion notification packets (CNPs) (paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth’s system to include wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets, as taught in combination with Wandler, for the typical benefit of saving network bandwidth by providing congestion control without using congestion notification packets (CNPs) (paragraph 15).
As to claim 2, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the receive byte count is contained in a transport header (see Southworth at paragraph 43 and Wandler at paragraph 23-24).
As to claim 3, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the congestion window is a connection-level byte fidelity congestion window implemented by the first device without using a packet tracker (“A congestion window can represent a number of packets or amount of data (e.g., number of bytes) that can be transmitted before receipt of an acknowledgement of packet receipt”; see Southworth at paragraph 27).
As to claim 4, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein:
the first device comprises a responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the second device comprises a requestor device (initiating read; see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the first RDMA message is a read response associated with a read request, the read response is transmitted from the responder device to the requestor device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-12, 20, 90);
the second RDMA message is an acknowledgement of the read response transmitted from the requestor device to the responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-11, 18, 27).
As to claim 5, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the acknowledgement is a standard unreliable duplicate acknowledgement (see Southworth at paragraph 27, 36, 46 and Wandler at paragraph 23-25).
As to claim 6, Southworth and Wandler disclose transmitting a probe packet from the responder device to the requestor device(“a single outbound Request or Response packet followed by an SNP or merely sending another SNP” see Southworth at paragraph 36), in a case that the acknowledgement is not received by the responder device and that the size of the congestion window is greater than or equal to a congestion window threshold (lost SNP/RNP resulting in window closure; see Southworth at paragraph 36);
receiving, from the requestor device, an acknowledgement of the probe packet containing the receive byte count (window reopening RNP; see Southworth at paragraph 36).
As to claim 7, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein:
the first device comprises a requestor device (see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the second device comprises a responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the first RDMA message is a write request transmitted from the requestor device to the responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-12, 20, 90);
the second RDMA message is an acknowledgement of the write request transmitted from the responder device to the requestor device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-12, 20, 90).
As to claim 8, Southworth and Wandler disclose transmitting a probe packet from the requestor device to the responder device (“a single outbound Request or Response packet followed by an SNP or merely sending another SNP” see Southworth at paragraph 36), in a case that the acknowledgement is not received by the requestor device and that the size of the congestion window is greater than or equal to a congestion window threshold (lost SNP/RNP resulting in window closure; see Southworth at paragraph 36);
receiving, from the responder device, an acknowledgement of the probe packet containing the receive byte count (window reopening RNP; see Southworth at paragraph 36).
As to claim 9, Southworth discloses a system for remote direct memory access (RDMA) communication (Fig. 1; paragraph 12), the system comprising:
a first device (100);
a second device communicatively coupled to the first device via a network (130; paragraph 12-14);
wherein the first device is configured to:
transmit a first RDMA message to the second device (paragraph 15-16, 42, 44);
store a transmit byte count of a total number of bytes transmitted in the first RDMA message (paragraph 15-17, 27, 44-46);
receive, from the second device, a second RDMA message associated with the first RDMA message, the second RDMA message comprising a receive byte count of a total number of bytes of the first RDMA message received by the second device (paragraph 17, 27, 45);
determine a size of a congestion window on the network based on the transmit byte count and the receive byte count (paragraph 17, 27, 44-46).
While Southworth discloses congestion notification packets, Southworth fails to specifically disclose wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets.
In an analogous art, Wandler discloses a system for remote direct memory access (RDMA) communication (Fig. 1-2; paragraph 15, 22-24) which will transmit, from a first device to a second device via a network, a first RDMA message (210, paragraph 22-26) and receive, by the first device from the second device, a second RDMA message associated with the first RDMA message, wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics (RDMA ACK, 212; paragraph 15, 22-26) and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets (congestion window determined based upon RDMA ACK header information; paragraph 15, 22-26) so as to save network bandwidth by providing congestion control without using congestion notification packets (CNPs) (paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth’s system to include wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets, as taught in combination with Wandler, for the typical benefit of saving network bandwidth by providing congestion control without using congestion notification packets (CNPs) (paragraph 15).
As to claim 10, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the receive byte count is contained in a transport header (see Southworth at paragraph 43 and Wandler at paragraph 23-24).
As to claim 11, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the congestion window is a connection-level byte fidelity congestion window implemented by the first device without using a packet tracker (“A congestion window can represent a number of packets or amount of data (e.g., number of bytes) that can be transmitted before receipt of an acknowledgement of packet receipt”; see Southworth at paragraph 27).
As to claim 12, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein:
the first device comprises a responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the second device comprises a requestor device (initiating read; see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the first RDMA message is a read response associated with a read request, the read response is transmitted from the responder device to the requestor device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-12, 20, 90);
the second RDMA message is an acknowledgement of the read response transmitted from the requestor device to the responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-11, 18, 27).
As to claim 13, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the acknowledgement is a standard unreliable duplicate acknowledgement (see Southworth at paragraph 27, 36, 46 and Wandler at paragraph 23-25).
As to claim 14, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein:
in a case that the acknowledgement is not received by the responder device and that the size of the congestion window is greater than or equal to a congestion window threshold (lost SNP/RNP resulting in window closure; see Southworth at paragraph 36), the responder device is further configured to:
transmit a probe packet to the requestor device (“a single outbound Request or Response packet followed by an SNP or merely sending another SNP” see Southworth at paragraph 36);
receive, from the requestor device, an acknowledgement of the probe packet containing the receive byte count (window reopening RNP; see Southworth at paragraph 36).
As to claim 15, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein:
the first device comprises a requestor device (see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the second device comprises a responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8, 49, 57);
the first RDMA message is a write request transmitted from the requestor device to the responder device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-12, 20, 90);
the second RDMA message is an acknowledgement of the write request transmitted from the responder device to the requestor device (see Southworth at paragraph 8-12, 20, 90).
As to claim 16, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein: in a case that the acknowledgement is not received by the requestor device and that the size of the congestion window is greater than or equal to a congestion window threshold (lost SNP/RNP resulting in window closure; see Southworth at paragraph 36), the requestor device is further configured to
transmit a probe packet to the responder device (“a single outbound Request or Response packet followed by an SNP or merely sending another SNP” see Southworth at paragraph 36);
receive, from the responder device, an acknowledgement of the probe packet containing the receive byte count (window reopening RNP; see Southworth at paragraph 36).
As to claim 17, Southworth discloses a responder device for remote direct memory access (RDMA) communication with a requestor device via a network (100 sending data to 130; Fig. 1), the responder device comprising:
circuitry (Fig. 4; paragraph 12, 49) configured to:
receive a read request from the requestor device (initiating read; paragraph 8, 12, 20, 49, 57);
transmit a read response to the requestor device (paragraph 15-16, 42, 44);
store a transmit byte count of a total number of bytes transmitted in the read response (paragraph 15-17, 27, 44-46);
receive an acknowledgement of the read response from the requestor device, the acknowledgement comprising a receive byte count of a total number of bytes of the read response received by the requestor device (paragraph 17, 27, 45);
determine a size of a congestion window on the network based on the transmit byte count and the receive byte count (paragraph 17, 27, 44-46).
While Southworth discloses congestion notification packets, Southworth fails to specifically disclose wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets.
In an analogous art, Wandler discloses a system for remote direct memory access (RDMA) communication (Fig. 1-2; paragraph 15, 22-24) which will transmit, from a first device to a second device via a network, a first RDMA message (210, paragraph 22-26) and receive, by the first device from the second device, a second RDMA message associated with the first RDMA message, wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics (RDMA ACK, 212; paragraph 15, 22-26) and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets (congestion window determined based upon RDMA ACK header information; paragraph 15, 22-26) so as to save network bandwidth by providing congestion control without using congestion notification packets (CNPs) (paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth’s system to include wherein the second RDMA message is transmitted according to existing RDMA protocol semantics and determining congestion without introducing protocol- level congestion signaling packets, as taught in combination with Wandler, for the typical benefit of saving network bandwidth by providing congestion control without using congestion notification packets (CNPs) (paragraph 15).
As to claim 18, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the receive byte count is contained in a transport header (see Southworth at paragraph 43 and Wandler at paragraph 23-24).
As to claim 19, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein the congestion window is a connection-level byte fidelity congestion window implemented by the first device without using a packet tracker (“A congestion window can represent a number of packets or amount of data (e.g., number of bytes) that can be transmitted before receipt of an acknowledgement of packet receipt”; see Southworth at paragraph 27).
As to claim 20, Southworth and Wandler disclose wherein:
in a case that the acknowledgement is not received by the responder device and that the size of the congestion window is greater than or equal to a congestion window threshold (lost SNP/RNP resulting in window closure; see Southworth at paragraph 36), the circuitry is further configured to:
transmit a probe packet to the requestor device (“a single outbound Request or Response packet followed by an SNP or merely sending another SNP” see Southworth at paragraph 36);
receive, from the requestor device, an acknowledgement of the probe packet containing the receive byte count (window reopening RNP; see Southworth at paragraph 36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Menachem et al. (US 2018/0004705) disclosing the modifying “standard, predefined RDMA protocol” NAK packets to selectively indicate packets lost from congestion.
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 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 James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights