DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 10/10/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1)-706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Copending Application No. 18/912,076 (18/912,076, hereinafter “Copending Application 1”), claims 1-20 of Copending Application No. 18/912,350 (18/912,350, hereinafter “Copending Application 2”), and claims 1-20 of Copending Application No. 18/912,318 (18/912,318, hereinafter “Copending Application 3”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the corresponding claims of Copending Application 1 (18/912,076), Copending Application 2 (18/912,350), and Copending Application 3 (18/912,318) and are therefore anticipated by claims 1-20 of Copending Application 1 (18/912,076), claims 1-20 of Copending Application 2 (18/912,350), and claims 1-20 of Copending Application 3 (18/912,318). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 19), the claim recites “communicating the packet from the first GPU on the first host machine to the second GPU on the second host machine using ports from the first subset of ports and the second subset of ports, wherein the first packet is processed by the first switch or the second switch, to be transmitted on the second virtual plane instead of the first virtual plane”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is indefinite as to whether transmitting on the second virtual plane instead of the first virtual plane is a requirement of the communicating of packets from the first GPU to the second GPU or just an intention, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Examiner suggests Applicant to consider providing further clarifications in order to positively recite “to be transmitted”.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, which claim dependency from claims 1, 10, and 19, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Hinnant et al. (US 2021/0258362 A1: Multi-Media Redirection for Media Applications), Cardona (US 2022/0391348 A1: Userspace Networking with Remote Direct Memory Access), Chang et al. (US 2018/0109471 A1: Generalized Packet Processing Offload in a Datacenter), Taylor (US 2023/0214345 A1: Multi-Node Memory Address Space for PCIe Devices), and Brar et al. (US 2022/0417139 A1: Routing Policies for Graphical Processing Units).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights