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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on July 24, 2024. A preliminary amendment was filed on the same day amending claims 1-6 and 8. Claims 1-8 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on July 24, 2024 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are the following limitations in claim 1:
A server delay control device that is disposed in a user space and starts a thread that monitors packet arrival using a polling model, the server delay control device comprising:
a data arrival monitor that monitors a reception queue of a device by polling and acquires data when a packet has arrived;
a data arrival notifier that notifies an application program of the data acquired by the data arrival monitoring unit monitor and passes the data to the application program; and
a sleep manager that causes the thread to sleep when no packet arrives for a predetermined period and cancels sleep of the thread by a hardware interrupt when a packet has arrived, wherein the sleep management unit manager controls a timing of the sleep by permitting the hardware interrupt based on characteristics of the application program.
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.
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
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.
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 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20190391940 A1), hereinafter, Vasudevan, in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20200396172 A1), hereinafter, Wang.
Regarding claim 1:
Vasudevan teaches:
A server delay control device that is disposed in a user space and starts a thread that monitors packet arrival using a polling model, the server delay control device comprising (Fig. 3 shows compute node 102 (server delay control device) with application thread data):
a data arrival monitor that monitors a reception queue of a device by polling and acquires data when a packet has arrived (paragraph 0048 discloses arrival of a packet in a queue as stated “Regardless, in block 504, the compute node 102 determines whether a network packet has arrived in the queue (e.g., via the NIC 212 of FIG. 2”. Paragraph 0053 discloses NIC 212 (data arrival monitor) );
a data arrival notifier that notifies an application program of the data acquired by the data arrival monitor and passes the data to the application program (paragraph 0049 discloses delivering the packet to an application thread as stated “In block 506, the compute node 102 retrieves the packet from the associated queue and delivers the packet to the requesting application associated with the application thread (e.g., based on the application thread identifier), and the application may act on the packet in block 508”. Fig. 3 shows I/O queue manager 310 (data arrival notifier)); and
a sleep manager that causes the thread to sleep [[when no packet arrives for a predetermined period]] and cancels sleep of the thread by a hardware interrupt when a packet has arrived (Fig. 5, steps 512 and 514, disclose putting the thread in to interrupt event wait mode (sleep). Fig. 6, steps 520 and 530, discloses cancelling the interrupt event wait mode by an interrupt. Paragraph 0052 discloses the interrupt is generated based arrival of packet as shown in Fig. 7 . Fig. 3 shows wait mode manager 3134 (sleep manager)),
[[wherein the sleep manager controls a timing of the sleep by permitting the hardware interrupt based on characteristics of the application program]].
Vasudevan does not teach when no packet arrives for a predetermined period, wherein the sleep manager controls a timing of the sleep by permitting the hardware interrupt based on characteristics of the application program.
Wang teaches when no packet arrives for a predetermined period, wherein the sleep manager controls a timing of the sleep by permitting the hardware interrupt based on characteristics of the application program ( Fig. 3, steps 320 and 340, detecting zero polling round i.e. no packet arrival in queue for a number of allowable zero polling rounds (predetermined period) as explained in paragraphs 0029 and 0030. Fig. 3, step 350, discloses adjusting sleep parameters based on the traffic characteristics. Paragraph 0030 discloses the sleep parameter includes sleep time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasudevan to incorporate the teaching of Wang. One would be motivated to adjust the sleep parameters based on the traffic dynamics (see paragraph 47 of Vasudevan paragraph 0030 of Wang).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasudevan in view of Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Vasudevan does not teach wherein the sleep manager compares an elapsed time from when no packet arrives with a time suitable for the characteristics of the application program, and in a case where the elapsed time from when no packet arrives is equal to or longer than a predetermined time suitable for the characteristics of the application program, enables the hardware interrupt and causes the thread to sleep.
Wang teaches wherein the sleep manager compares an elapsed time from when no packet arrives with a time suitable for the characteristics of the application program, and in a case where the elapsed time from when no packet arrives is equal to or longer than a predetermined time suitable for the characteristics of the application program, enables the hardware interrupt and causes the thread to sleep (Fig. 3, steps 320, 340 and 360, detecting zero polling round i.e. no packet arrival in queue for a number of allowable zero polling rounds (predetermined period) and putting into sleep mode as explained in paragraphs 0029 and 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasudevan to incorporate the teaching of Wang. One would be motivated to adjust the sleep parameters based on the traffic dynamics (see paragraph 47 of Vasudevan paragraph 0030 of Wang).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasudevan in view of Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Vasudevan further teaches wherein the data arrival monitor checks whether data has arrived at a reception queue of the device at a predetermined timing based on the characteristics of the application program (paragraph 0047 discloses controlling queue parameters based on application characteristics).
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 is directed towards a server delay control method performed by the server delay control device of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is directed towards non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the server delay control device according to claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan in view of Wang an further in view of Kinoshita (Japanese Patent Document No. JP 2019165411 A), hereinafter, Kinoshita.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasudevan in view of Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Vasudevan does not teach wherein the data arrival notifier makes a notification immediately at the time of packet arrival in a case where the characteristics of the application program are characteristics of sequentially processing packets, and makes a notification when a predetermined number of packets arrive in a case where the characteristics of the application program are characteristic of batch processing of packets.
Kinoshita teaches wherein the data arrival notifier makes a notification immediately at the time of packet arrival in a case where the characteristics of the application program are characteristics of sequentially processing packets, and makes a notification when a predetermined number of packets arrive in a case where the characteristics of the application program are characteristic of batch processing of packets (page 6, first paragraph, discloses notifying data with sequentially processing immediately and notifying after a predetermined interval with batch processing as stated “FIG. 6B is a diagram illustrating an example of a table describing settings related to notification. This notification setting table T1 shows the correspondence between importance, notification timing, notification content, and notification destination. “Importance” is defined in the same way as the importance of an event, and here, three levels (high, medium, and low) are provided. “Notification timing” includes, for example, “sequential processing” that immediately notifies each time an event is detected, and “batch processing” that performs batch notification every day without notifying immediately. The “notification content” may include specific items in addition to the information content of the notification content. Examples of “notification destination” include an IP address and a host name.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasudevan to incorporate the teaching of Kinoshita. One would be motivated to do that to adjust notification interval based on priority (see page 6, second paragraph of Kinoshita).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasudevan in view of Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Vasudevand does not teach wherein the data arrival notifier has a packet processing function, executes the packet processing function according to the characteristics of the application program, and does not notify the application program when executing the packet processing function.
Kinoshita teaches wherein the data arrival notifier has a packet processing function, executes the packet processing function according to the characteristics of the application program, and does not notify the application program when executing the packet processing function (page 6, first paragraph, discloses not notifying while processing batch processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasudevan to incorporate the teaching of Kinoshita. One would be motivated to do that to minimize notification for low priority data (see page 6, second paragraph of Kinoshita).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan in view of Wang an further in view of Saitou et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20110258311 A1), hereinafter, Saitou.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vasudevan in view of Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Vasudevan further teaches further comprising a logic manager that collects information on the characteristics of the application program and processing information of the thread, and changes a processing logic of at least one functional unit among the data arrival monitor, the data arrival notifier, and the sleep manager in a case of the application program in which a load varies depending on a time zone and a processing method and processing speed vary, based on the information that has been collected.
Saitou teaches further comprising a logic manager that collects information on the characteristics of the application program and processing information of the thread, and changes a processing logic of at least one functional unit among the data arrival monitor, the data arrival notifier, and the sleep manager in a case of the application program in which a load varies depending on a time zone and a processing method and processing speed vary, based on the information that has been collected (paragraph 0075 discloses changing monitoring interval depending on the time zone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasudevan to incorporate the teaching of Saitou. One would be motivated to do that to match the time zone (see paragraph 75 of Saitou).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
September 30, 2025
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights