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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 04/07/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues (see page 7), with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16, that there is no disclosure or suggestion of a process of receiving a message from a remote computer system via a RDMA connection indicating a file to access. Since Yamada and Horowitz each fail to disclose or suggest a process of receiving a message from a remote computer system via a RDMA connection indicating a file to access, any combination of the references necessarily fail to disclose or suggest such a process.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0305637) in view of Kanevsky et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0292861) is made in view of the amendments made to the claims. The combination of Horowitz and the new reference, Kanevsky, is now relied upon to teach all of the features of claims 1, 9 and 16.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “processing resources” in claims 1, 4, 7-8, 16 and 19.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: "software-executing general purpose processor” (see paragraph 0016 of the specification as filed).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 which depends from claim 11. Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claim 11. Therefore, claim 13 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 which depends from claim 12. Claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 12. Therefore, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the computer system”. Although the claims in which claim 13 depends from recite the limitation “remote computer system”, the term “the computer system” recited in claim 13 is not the same as “remote computer system”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer system” in the claim. Claim 14 fails to remedy the deficiency of claim 13 and is rejected. This rejection may be overcome by amending claim 13 to recite “the remote computer system” instead of “the computer system”.
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 1-4, 6, 9-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0305637) in view of Kanevsky et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0292861).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Horowitz teaches A system comprising: one or more processing resources; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, coupled to the processing resource, having stored therein instructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources cause the one or more processing resources to receive a request from a remote computer system to initiate a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection, (Horowitz, see fig. 3A and 8; see paragraph 0053 the request 302 is an add session request to establish a new RDMA session; see paragraph 0071 the RDMA connection between the requestor and recipient may be established 508…)
establish the RDMA connection with the remote computer system, (Horowitz, see fig. 3A; see paragraph 0053 the request 302 is an add session request to establish a new RDMA session; see paragraph 0071 the RDMA connection between the requestor and recipient may be established 508…)
However, Horowitz does not explicitly teach receive a message from the remote computer system via the RDMA connection indicating a file to access,
copy file data into an input/output (I/0) buffer in response to receiving the message and
write the file data to the remote computer system via an RDMA write transaction.
Kanevsky teaches receive a message from the remote computer system via the RDMA connection indicating a file to access, (Kanevsky, see figs. 5-6; see paragraph 0014 data access requests can be combined in the storage server into a single RDMA data access request; see paragraphs 0060-0061 a scatter list and a gather list. A scatter list or gather list is a list of entries (also called "vectors" or "pointers"), each of which includes the STag for the NVSSM subsystem 26 as well as the location and length of one segment in the overall read or write request. A gather list specifies one or more source memory segments from where data is to be retrieved at the source of an RDMA transfer...data access requests 51-1 . . . 51-n (read requests or write requests) into a single RDMA data access 52 (RDMA read or write)... single RDMA data access 52 includes a scatter-gather list generated by NVSSM data layout engine 46 and by storage manager 41, where data layout engine 46 generates a list for NVSSM 26 and storage manager 41 generates a list for storage server internal memory (e.g., buffer cache 6). A scatter list or a gather list can specify multiple memory segments at the source or destination)
copy file data into an input/output (I/0) buffer in response to receiving the message and (Kanevsky, see figs. 10A-10B; see paragraphs 0067-0068 the storage server 2 buffers the write data 63 in the buffer cache 6 temporarily, and then subsequently causes the write data 63 to be copied to the PPS subsystem 4 (e.g., the NVSSM subsystem 26)…)
write the file data to the remote computer system via an RDMA write transaction. (Kanevsky, see figs. 10A-10B; see paragraph 0068 causes the NVSSM data layout manager 46 to initiate an RDMA write, to write the data 63 from the storage server buffer cache 6 into the NVSSM subsystem 26. To initiate the RDMA write, the storage manager 41 generates a gather list 65 including source pointers to the buffers in storage server buffer cache 6 where the write data 63 was placed...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Horowitz and Kanevsky to provide the technique of receiving a message from the remote computer system via the RDMA connection indicating a file to access, copying file data into an input/output (I/0) buffer in response to receiving the message and writing the file data to the remote computer system via an RDMA write transaction of Horowitz in the system of Kanevsky in order to avoid bottleneck and provide superior performance (Kanevsky, see paragraphs 0005-0006).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Horowitz-Kanevsky wherein the message comprises an instruction indicating a file of interest that includes the file data. (Kanevsky, see figs. 5-6; see paragraph 0014 data access requests can be combined in the storage server into a single RDMA data access request; see paragraphs 0060-0061 data access requests 51-1 . . . 51-n (read requests or write requests) into a single RDMA data access 52 (RDMA read or write)... single RDMA data access 52 includes a scatter-gather list generated by NVSSM data layout engine 46 and by storage manager 41, where data layout engine 46 generates a list for NVSSM 26 and storage manager 41 generates a list for storage server internal memory (e.g., buffer cache 6). A scatter list or a gather list can specify multiple memory segments at the source or destination) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 16 is also applied to claims 2, 10 and 17.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 13 and 18, Horowitz-Kanevsky wherein the remote computer system comprises a RDMA client to perform the RDMA write transaction. (Kanevsky, see figs. 5-6; see paragraph 0014 data access requests can be combined in the storage server into a single RDMA data access request; see paragraph 0061 data access requests 51-1 . . . 51-n (read requests or write requests) into a single RDMA data access 52 (RDMA read or write)... single RDMA data access 52 includes a scatter-gather list generated by NVSSM data layout engine 46 and by storage manager 41, where data layout engine 46 generates a list for NVSSM 26 and storage manager 41 generates a list for storage server internal memory (e.g., buffer cache 6). A scatter list or a gather list can specify multiple memory segments at the source or destination) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 16 is also applied to claims 3, 11, 13 and 18.
Regarding claims 4, 12 , 14 and 19, Horowitz-Kanevsky wherein the one or more processing resources further execute the instructions to copy the file data into a source buffer to initiate the RDMA write transaction prior to writing the file data to the remote computer system. (Kanevsky, see figs. 10A-10B; see paragraphs 0067-0068 the storage server 2 buffers the write data 63 in the buffer cache 6 temporarily, and then subsequently causes the write data 63 to be copied to the PPS subsystem 4 (e.g., the NVSSM subsystem 26)…) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 16 is also applied to claims 4, 12 , 14 and 19.
Regarding claim 6, Horowitz-Kanevsky wherein the plurality of RDMA messages further comprises a write completed message transmitted to the remote computer system indicating completion of the RDMA. (Kanevsky, see figs. 10A-10B; see paragraph 0077 the RDMA controller sends a "completion" status message to the storage operating system 40 for the last write operation in the sequence (assuming a compound RDMA write), to complete the process. In another embodiment a sequence of RDMA write operations 1004 is generated by the storage controller 2...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 9 and 16 is also applied to claim 6.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz-Kanevsky in view of Frey et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0106905).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Horowitz-Kanevsky teaches all of the features of claims 4 and 19. However, Horowitz-Kanevsky does not explicitly teach wherein the RDMA connection comprises a Software-iWARP link.
Frey teaches wherein the RDMA connection comprises a Software-iWARP link. (Frey, see paragraph 0054 the iWARP software implementation can use a socket callback 415 to determine if send space is sufficient to continue sending…; see paragraph 0069 implemented with iWARP software implementations based on TCP sockets or with optimized designs that avoid the intermediate socket buffering that is typically present with TCP sockets by exploiting the communication buffer ownership semantics of RDMA...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Horowitz-Kanevsky and Frey to provide the technique of wherein the RDMA connection comprises a Software-iWARP link of Frey in the system of Horowitz-Kanevsky in order to avoid unproductive requests and allow for efficient data transfers at a high overall throughput. (Frey, see paragraphs 0043 and 0064).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz-Kanevsky in view of Fu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0143939).
Regarding claim 7, Horowitz-Kanevsky teaches all of the features of claim 2. However, Horowitz-Kanevsky does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processing resources further execute the instructions to determine whether a size of a receive buffer allocated to receive the file data at the remote computing system is sufficient to hold the requested file data.
Fu teaches wherein the one or more processing resources further execute the instructions to determine whether a size of a receive buffer allocated to receive the file data at the remote computing system is sufficient to hold the requested file data. (Fu, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0043 comprise a size of the message...copied into a send ring buffer starting at a memory location of the send ring buffer identified by a write edge pointer. According to one aspect, the copying of the message into the send ring buffer can commence only after verification that there is sufficient room in the send ring buffer...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Horowitz-Kanevsky and Fu to provide the technique of determining whether a size of a receive buffer allocated to receive the file data at the remote computing system is sufficient to hold the requested file data of Fu in the system of Horowitz-Kanevsky in order to avoid data fragmentation and inefficiencies (Fu, see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 8, Horowitz-Kanevsky-Fu teaches wherein the one or more processing resources further execute the instructions to receive a message indicating a memory region that corresponds to the receive buffer. (Fu, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0043 comprise a size of the message...copied into a send ring buffer starting at a memory location of the send ring buffer identified by a write edge pointer. According to one aspect, the copying of the message into the send ring buffer can commence only after verification that there is sufficient room in the send ring buffer...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 7 is also applied to claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz-Kanevsky in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0062811).
Regarding claim 15, Horowitz-Kanevsky teaches all of the features of claim 10. However, Horowitz-Kanevsky does not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting dump metadata associated with the file of interest.
Yamada teaches further comprising: transmitting dump metadata associated with the file of interest. (Yamada, see figs. 5-6 and 8A-8B; see paragraphs 0050-0051 where ...the CPU 300a performs various failure investigations to the dump file of the memory 100-1b of the node 100-1 transferred from the node 200-1… the data area in the dump file of the memory 100-1b of the node 100-1...the dump file of the memory 100-1b of the node 100-1 acquired in OP205 or OP207,...; see paragraph 0058 where acquires entity data using RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access) from the structure which is the link destination…; see paragraph 0047 instruct the file server 400 to acquire from the disk apparatus 500 data in a predetermined reference area (metadata) in the data acquired from the memory 100-1b of the node 100-1 and transfer the acquired data to the failure analyzing node 300. It is noted that the predetermined reference area is an area which includes data as the execution target of a command used for the failure investigation )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Horowitz-Kanevsky and Fu to provide the technique of transmitting dump metadata associated with the file of interest of Yamada in the system of Horowitz-Kanevsky in order to reduce the amount of memory dump in the system (Yamada, see paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights