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 response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 06/23/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 17 and 18 have been amended, claims xx are canceled and claims xx are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In remarks applicant argues that:
Response to arguments regarding claims 1, 6-10, 15, 16 and 17:
Applicant contends that Roz and Par fail to disclose or suggest, “executing cloud provider management functionality on the PDU that is disaggregated from server processing core,” as recite in claim 1. Applicant further asserts that Roz and Par are directed solely to cybersecurity enforcement and vulnerability mitigation, and therefore cannot teach or suggest the claimed computing service provider functions (network fabric management, VM/container management, orchestration of edge computing resources). These arguments are not persuasive, see the detail below:
1. Roz and Par teach DPU executed functions disaggregated from server cores: Roz explicitly teaches that the DPU executes processing independent of the host CPU, including feature extraction, telemetry processing, and enforcement actions applied to network traffic. Par likewise teaches that compensating controls are executed on the DPU, dynamically selected based on workload characteristic, and applied to ingress traffic prior to reaching the workload’s processing cores.
The applicant argument that these functions are “security only” is not commensurate with the breadth of the claim. Claim 1 recites a “computing service provider function” comprising at least one of network management, VM/container management, or orchestration. The claim does not exclude other types of functions, nor does it require that the PDU exclusively perform cloud provider orchestration. The cited references teach offloaded, DPU executed processing functions applied to network traffic before host core processing, which meets the claim’s structural and functional requirements.
Applicant argues that Roz and Par do not disclose “cloud provider orchestration or network management functions”. However, the claim language does not require full orchestration or full network fabric management. It merely requires a computing service provider function comprising at least one of the listed examples. The DPU executed enforcement, filtering , and traffic management functions taught in Roz and Par constitute provider side network management operations applied to packets prior to host core processing. Thus, the references reasonably suggests offloading provider side functions to the DPU, satisfying the claim limitation.
Motivation to combine:
Roz teaches DPU-based packet processing and enforcement. Par teaches DPU based dynamic control placement and workload specific processing.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine these teachings to offload provider side functions, including network fabric related or orchestration related functions to the DPU to improve performance, reduce host CPU load, and provide fine grained control at the network edge. This is consistent with the motivations explicitly stated in Par (e.g., reducing CPU burden, tailoring controls to workloads).
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive as discussed above and therefore, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 15, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozenbaum et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0336574 A1), hereinafter “Roz” in view of Parla et al. (Pub. No.: 2025/0039220 A1), hereinafter “Par”.
As to claim 1. Roz discloses the invention substantially, a method for processing data, the method comprising:
executing, on a digital processing unit (DPU), of a computing environment comprising a computing service provider and an edge computing network, the edge computing network comprising computing and storage devices configured to extend computing resources of the computing service provider to remote users of the computing service provider at a location remote from the computer service provider (Roz, [0012], [0017], [0035], DPU receives network data directed to a host device and performs security processing. DPU is explicitly coupled to the host / server), the edge computing network comprising a server communicatively coupled to a digital processing unit (DPU) a computing service provider function that is disaggregated from processing cores of the server of the edge computing network (Roz, [0012], [0035]), the computing service provider function providing a network management (Roz, [0014], [0019], receives network data directed to a host device and performs security processing. [0017], DPU is explicitly coupled to the host / server and [0021], policy-based selection of what data is extracted and processing using configuration files.);
receiving, by the DPU, a data packet addressed to an endpoint on a network serviced by virtual machines, containers, or processes running on the server of the edge computing network (Roz, [0014], [0019], the hardware-accelerated security service receives a copy of the network data….”) ; and
Roz however is silent to disclose explicitly, the computing service provider function comprising at least one of: Network fabric management, virtual machine or container management, or orchestration of edge computing resources; applying, by the DPU, the computing service provider function to the data packet, thereby enabling the data packet to be processed by the DPU prior to being processed by functions running on the processing cores of the server of the edge computing network.
Par discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, orchestration of edge computing resources (Par, [0026]);
applying, by the DPU, the computing service provider function to the data packet, thereby enabling the data packet to be processed by the DPU prior to being processed by functions running on the processing cores of the server of the edge computing network (Par, [0018], ingress traffic passes through the network component ..before reaching the workload. Fig.3 further shows multiple DPU, each applying different compensating controls.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Par” into those of “Roz” to provide a method for dynamically placing security controls in a network infrastructure. Input values representing the workload are ingested. A network component is placed in front of the workload to process/filter ingress traffic into the workload. The input values are analyzed to determine the asset criticality of the workload and to determine which vulnerabilities to which the workload is susceptible. Based on this analysis of the input values, compensating controls are selected to protect the workload from the determined vulnerabilities, and the network component is dynamically programed to perform these compensating controls on the ingress traffic.
As to claim 6. The combined system of Roz and Par discloses the invention substantially as applied above including, wherein the DPU is located on a DPU complex comprising a plurality of DPUs (Par, fig.3.).
As to claim 7. The combined system of Roz and Par discloses the invention substantially as applied above including, further comprising applying a plurality of computing service provider function by the plurality of DPUs (Par, fig.3, [0081], [0083]).
As to claim 8. The combined system of Roz and Par discloses the invention substantially as applied above including, wherein the DPU is configured to operate a plurality of processing paths, further comprising assigning the computing service provider function to a selected one of the processing paths (Par, fig.3, [0064], OSPF protocol).
As to claim 9. The combined system of Roz and Par discloses the invention substantially as applied above including, wherein the one processing path is dynamically selected based on incoming workloads or determined based on a configuration (Par, fig.3, [0064], OSPF protocol).
As to claim 10 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
As to claim 16 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
As to claim 17 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Roz” and “Par” as applied above in view of Sindhu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0224564 A1), hereinafter “Sin”.
As to claim 2. The combined system of Roz and Par discloses the invention substantially as applied above. Roz and Par however are silent to discloses explicitly, wherein the computing service provider function implements one of a compute fabric, network fabric, or storage fabric.
Sin discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the computing service provider function comprises one of a compute fabric, network fabric, or storage fabric (Sin, [0006]-[0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Sin” into those of “Roz and Par” to provide a new processing architecture that utilizes a data processing unit (DPU). Unlike conventional compute models that are centered around a central processing unit (CPU), example implementations described herein leverage a DPU that is specially designed and optimized for a data-centric computing model in which the data processing tasks are centered around, and the primary responsibility of, the DPU.
As to claim 3. The combined system of Roz, Par and Sin discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the DPU is a root of trust for the computing service provider at the edge computing network (Sin, [0117], access software is typically part of the kernel and runs in root/privileged mode, although in some cases, protocol stacks may be executed in user space.).
As to claim 4. The combined system of Roz, Par and Sin discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the root of trust enables secure installation of operating systems or applications from the computing service provider at the edge computing network (Roz, [0014], Although they execute on different operating systems and often have different deployment requirements, aspects of the present disclosure can provide fast and exact coordination between the sensor (e.g., DPU with ARM cores) and other edge-based and centralized accelerated compute environments (GPU cores).).
As to claim 11 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 12 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 13 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 18 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 5, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Roz” and “Par” as applied above in view of Glimcher et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0305977 A1), hereinafter “Glim”.
As to claim 5. The combined system of Roz, and Par discloses the invention substantially. Roz, and Par however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the DPU is configured to cause data traffic to be forwarded to a different server at the edge computing network or another edge computing network when a failure is detected at the server.
Glim discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the DPU is configured to cause data traffic to be forwarded to a different server at the edge computing network or another edge computing network when a failure is detected at the server (Glim, [0048], [0055], forwarding capability. [0065], failure-triggered redirection).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Glim” into those of “Roz and Par” to provide a high-available network-attached storage arrays that have the feature of non-disruptive upgrade (NDU) of their software and firmware, while one or more applications are still running input/output (I/O) and no crash or service down is experienced. With the emergence of smart network interface controllers (also known as smart network interface cards or SmartNIC in short), there are many functions available now to SmartNIC that may enhance server and entire solution capabilities. Since SmartNIC is a new emerging technology, there are no acceptable solutions for NDU while running I/O.
As to claim 14 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights