CTNF 18/988,497 CTNF 86004 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to application filed on December 19, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 1: The term " associated " in line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " associated " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 8: The term " associated " in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " associated " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 14: The term " associated " in line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " associated " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 1, 8, and 14: The term " attached " in lines 4 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " attached " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakil et al. (US 20180173557 A1) hereinafter “Nakil” in view of Singh et al. (US 20220353197 A1) hereinafter “Singh” . As to claim 14, Nakil discloses a data center (Nakil [51], cloud data center environment) comprising: a fabric attached memory (Nakil [53-54, 91-93], discloses data center provides an operating environment for applications and services for customers coupled to the data center by service provider network include processor and memory); a first virtualized server located at a first physical host, wherein the first virtualized server is configured to copy a data packet into a send queue associated with the first virtualized server, wherein the send queue is located at the fabric attached memory (Nakil [62-66, 70-72], discloses wherein the multicast tree is calculated at virtual network controller instead of in a distributed fashion by network switches and routers in switch fabric that service the multicast group, and wherein the replication/coping and forwarding of multicast packets is performed by virtual switches executed on servers of the virtual network); one or more processors associated with the fabric attached memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to retrieve the data packet from the send queue and to forward the data packet to a receive queue at the fabric attached memory (Nakil [61-62, 96-99], discloses wherein the server can update the request to replace the identifier included within the request with the globally unique identifier then transmit the updated request to IF-MAP server, the request may comprise any form of communication including data retrieval requests or any other form of IF-MAP request or communication); and Nakil is silent on a second virtualized server located at a second physical host and associated with the receive queue, wherein the second virtualized server is configured to retrieve the data packet from the receive queue. However, Singh discloses a second virtualized server located at a second physical host and associated with the receive queue, wherein the second virtualized server is configured to retrieve the data packet from the receive queue (Singh [30-33, 72-73], discloses wherein different virtual network traffic, a second data packet associated with a different VLAN of the virtual network may flow from the second host machine via the third data path to the second splitter port of the first splitter device, and the second data packet may then further be routed to the first port of the smartNIC over the first data path, while the first data packet and the second data packet are respectively received via different splitter ports of the splitter device, the packets are both received by the smartNIC at the same first port). Nakil and Singh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of sending and receiving data packets over the internet. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakil and Singh before him or her, to modify the virtual network packet flow system of Nakil to include the feature for retrieving data packet from a different port of Singh with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of reducing latency between virtualized server communication. This method of improving the data packet flow system of Nakil was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Singh. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakil with Singh to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14. As to claim 15, Nakil-Singh discloses the data center of claim 14, wherein the first virtualized server and the second virtualized server are containers (Nakil [52-53, 193-194], discloses data center 10 includes a set of storage systems and application servers). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Nakil and Singh as in claim 14 above. As to claim 16, Nakil-Singh discloses the data center of claim 14, wherein the first virtualized server, the one or more processors, and the second virtualized server are each connected to a switched memory fabric (Nakil [4-7] first server device and a second server device each connected to a network by a switch fabric). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Nakil and Singh as in claim 14 above. As to claim 17, Nakil-Singh discloses the data center of claim 16, wherein the switched memory fabric uses a compute express link (CXL) protocol (Nakil [7-11, 57-61], discloses using peering protocol, along with MAP and ICM protocols). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Nakil and Singh as in claim 16 above. As to claim 18, Nakil-Singh discloses the data center of claim 16, further comprising an Ethernet connection server connected to the switched memory fabric, the Ethernet connection server facilitating packet communication with other servers outside of the data center using an Ethernet protocol (Nakil [303, 370], discloses capability for facilitating packet communication utilizing ethernet protocol and other commonly utilized communication protocols). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Nakil and Singh as in claim 16 above. As to claim 19, Nakil-Singh discloses the data center of claim 14, wherein the second virtualized server is further configured to determine that the data packet is in the receive queue based on a monitoring of the receive queue, wherein the data packet is retrieved from the receive queue by the second virtualized server based on the determination that the data packet is in the receive queue (Singh [30-33], discloses wherein the second data packet, transmitted to the smartNIC from the second host machine, based in part on retrieving the modified second data packet from the first queue). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Nakil and Singh as in claim 14 above. As to claim 20, Nakil-Singh discloses the data center of claim 14, wherein the first virtualized server is further configured to update a tail pointer associated with the send queue after copying the data packet into the send queue, wherein the one or more processors are configured to retrieve the data packet from the send queue using the updated tail pointer to retrieve the data packet (Singh [30-34, 51], discloses wherein the processor of the programming data plane retrieves the modified packet from the queue). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Nakil and Singh as in claim 14 above. Claims 1-13 are corresponding method and apparatus claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 14-20 and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale . 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892 . Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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. /RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 Application/Control Number: 18/988,497 Page 2 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 18/988,497 Page 4 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 18/988,497 Page 5 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 18/988,497 Page 6 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 18/988,497 Page 7 Art Unit: 2454 Application/Control Number: 18/988,497 Page 8 Art Unit: 2454
Prosecution Insights