DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-18 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 .
Priority
The effective date of the claims described in this application is January 20,2022.
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 conflicting claims 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,7,8,14 of U.S. Patent 12261904.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims describe substantially similar subject matter and the difference in scope would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the network art as obvious variations of the claimed invention.
Claim 1,7,8,14 of U.S. Patent 12261904 disclosed (re. Claim 1,7,13 of the instance application) receive, from a controller computing device, a controller request on a first instance of a request-response protocol, wherein the controller request comprises controller data representing capabilities of the controller computing device; and
establish a second instance of the request-response protocol
transmit, to the controller computing device, an agent request on a second instance of the request-response protocol
receive, from the controller computing device, a controller response to the agent request on the second instance of the request-response protocol, wherein the controller response acknowledges receipt of the agent request
after receiving the controller response, transmit, to the controller computing device, an agent response on the first instance of the request-response protocol,
synchronize, using the second instance pair and based on the controller data, capabilities of the controller computing device and the agent computing device;
terminate the second instance pair.
Claims 2-6 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 1.
Claims 8-12 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 7.
Claims 14-18 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 13.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Olcese (USPGPUB 2016/0094664) further in view of Archer (US Patent 8886916) further in view of Persson (USPGPUB 2010/0169612 )
Regarding Claim 1
Olcese Paragraph 14 disclosed wherein an apparatus may receive, via a stateless protocol message, request data from a computing device. The request may identify a hardware resource of the apparatus and an application that has provided a pairing request for pairing with the hardware resource. In response to receipt of the request data, the apparatus may provide, to the computing device via a stateless protocol message, an approval or a denial of the pairing request. The apparatus may also receive, via a stateless protocol message, an access request from the application for access to the hardware resource.
Olcese disclosed (re. Claim 1) an agent computing device comprising: memory containing agent data representing capabilities of the agent computing device; and one or more processors configured to:
receive, from a controller computing device, a controller request on a first instance pair, wherein the controller request comprises controller data representing capabilities of the controller computing device;( Olcese-Paragraph 34,the reflector 116 may be configured to receive (e.g.,via a stateless protocol message,such as a REST call) a request from an application (e.g.,the application 122 or the application 146) to pair with a hardware resource of a computing device remote from the reflector 116 (e.g.,a hardware resource of the hardware resources 134 and 144 of the computing devices 104 and 106,respectively), Paragraph 44,pairing request may specify a particular hardware resource by including an identifier of that hardware resource (e.g.,a uniform resource name identifier generated in accordance with known schema,or a proprietary identifier) )
While Olcese substantially disclosed the claimed invention Olcese does not disclose (re. Claim 1) in response to receiving the controller request: establish, with the controller computing device, a second instance pair nested within the first instance pair;
synchronize, using the second instance pair and based on the controller data, capabilities of the controller computing device and the agent computing device;
terminate the second instance pair; and
transmit, to the controller computing device using the first instance pair, an acknowledgement to the controller request.
Archer Column 19 Lines 5-10 disclosed wherein application-level entities, application programs (158) and application messaging modules (258),post (266,274) data communications instructions, including SENDs, RECEIVEs, PUTs, GETs and so on,to the work queues (282,284,306,308) in contexts and then call advance functions (268,270,276,278) on the contexts to progress specific data processing and data communications that carry out the instructions.
Archer disclosed (re. Claim 1) a second instance of the request-response protocol. (Archer-Column 17 Lines 50-55,Figure 5, the application (158) is implemented as a canonical process with multiple threads (251-254) assigned various duties by a leading thread (251) which itself executes an instance of a parallel application program. Each instance of a parallel application is assigned a task,Column 14 Lines 30-35, more than one instance of an application executes on a single compute node,the rank identifies the instance of the application as such rather than the compute node. A rank uniquely identifies an application's location in the tree network for use in both point-to-point and collective operations in the tree network.)
Olcese and Archer are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding application/hardware configuration discovery protocols. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Archer into Olcese. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable an application or an application messaging module, already programmed for DMA, to use the same DMA calls through a same API for DMA regardless whether subject endpoints are on the same compute node or on separate compute nodes. (Archer-Column 22 Lines 60-65)
Olcese-Archer disclosed (re. Claim 1) in response to receiving the controller request: ( Olcese-Paragraph 34,the reflector 116 may be configured to receive (e.g.,via a stateless protocol message,such as a REST call) a request from an application (e.g.,the application 122 or the application 146) to pair with a hardware resource of a computing device remote from the reflector 116 (e.g.,a hardware resource of the hardware resources 134 and 144 of the computing devices 104 and 106,respectively), Paragraph 44,pairing request may specify a particular hardware resource by including an identifier of that hardware resource (e.g.,a uniform resource name identifier generated in accordance with known schema,or a proprietary identifier) ) establish, with the controller computing device, a second instance pair nested within the first instance pair; (Archer-Column 17 Lines 50-55,Figure 5, the application (158) is implemented as a canonical process with multiple threads (251-254) assigned various duties by a leading thread (251) which itself executes an instance of a parallel application program. Each instance of a parallel application is assigned a task,Column 14 Lines 30-35, more than one instance of an application executes on a single compute node,the rank identifies the instance of the application as such rather than the compute node. A rank uniquely identifies an application's location in the tree network for use in both point-to-point and collective operations in the tree network.)
synchronize, using the second instance pair and based on the controller data, capabilities of the controller computing device and the agent computing device; (Olcese-Paragraph 35,the reflector 116 may be configured to generate a temporary token for provision to an application (e.g.,the application 122 or the application 146),in response to receipt of a pairing request from that application,Paragraph 48,the application may receive the temporary token and may provide the temporary token to the associated computing device (e.g.,to the capability proxy of the computing device) to trigger a request from the associated computing device to the intermediary logic 204 for the request data.)
While Olcese-Archer substantially disclosed the claimed invention Olcese-Archer does not disclose (re. Claim 1) terminate the second instance pair;
and
transmit, to the controller computing device using the first instance pair, an acknowledgement to the controller request.
Persson Figure 5 Paragraph 60 disclosed wherein In step 534A, the loop index k2 of the inner loop is compared to STOP2. If k2<STOP2, the inner loop should continue for at least one more iteration. Hence, if the answer in step 534A is YES, the execution of the process returns to step 533A. Otherwise, the execution of the iteration part of the inner loop is ended and the execution of the process continues to step 535A.
Persson disclosed (re. Claim 1) terminate the second instance pair; (Persson- Figure 5 Paragraph 60,In step 534A, the loop index k2 of the inner loop is compared to STOP2. If k2<STOP2, the inner loop should continue for at least one more iteration. Hence, if the answer in step 534A is YES, the execution of the process returns to step 533A. Otherwise, the execution of the iteration part of the inner loop is ended and the execution of the process continues to step 535A.)
And
Olcese and Persson are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding application/hardware configuration discovery protocols. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Persson into Olcese. The motivation for the said combination would have been so that the fetch and decode unit is not locked up by the nested-loop instruction during the entire execution of the instruction, which leads to that it may be possible for the remaining instruction-execution units to be supplied with other instructions to enable parallel execution of instructions.(Persson-Paragraph 27)
Olcese-Archer-Persson disclosed (re. Claim 1) transmit, to the controller computing device using the first instance pair, an acknowledgement to the controller request.(Archer-Column 7 Lines 1-5, such messages implement callback functions to advise of message dispatch and instruction completion and so on, thereby reducing the quantity of acknowledgment traffic)
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 (re. system) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 (re. controller device) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2,8,14
Olcese-Archer-Persson disclosed (re. Claim 2,8,14) wherein the first instance pair is a first instance of a request-response protocol. (Olcese-Paragraph 44,pairing request may be provided to the pairing request receipt logic 202 from the application via a stateless protocol message,such as a REST call)
Regarding Claim 3,9,15
Olcese-Archer-Persson disclosed (re. Claim 3,9,15) wherein receiving the controller request is a first instance of a request-response protocol. (Olcese-Paragraph 44,pairing request may be provided to the pairing request receipt logic 202 from the application via a stateless protocol message,such as a REST call)
Regarding Claim 4,10,16
Olcese-Archer-Persson disclosed (re. Claim 4,10,16) wherein the request-response protocol comprises a communication protocol compliant with and/or modelled on Representational State Transfer (REST). (Olcese-Paragraph 44,pairing request may be provided to the pairing request receipt logic 202 from the application via a stateless protocol message,such as a REST call)
Regarding Claim 5,11,17
Olcese-Archer-Persson disclosed (re. Claim 5,11,17) wherein the first instance pair remains while the second instance pair is nested, (Archer-Column 17 Lines 50-55,Figure 5, the application (158) is implemented as a canonical process with multiple threads (251-254) assigned various duties by a leading thread (251) which itself executes an instance of a parallel application program. Each instance of a parallel application is assigned a task,Column 14 Lines 30-35, more than one instance of an application executes on a single compute node,the rank identifies the instance of the application as such rather than the compute node. A rank uniquely identifies an application's location in the tree network for use in both point-to-point and collective operations in the tree network.) and wherein terminating the second instance pair after transmission of the acknowledgement results in the termination of the first instance pair. (Persson- Figure 5 Paragraph 60,In step 534A, the loop index k2 of the inner loop is compared to STOP2. If k2<STOP2, the inner loop should continue for at least one more iteration. Hence, if the answer in step 534A is YES, the execution of the process returns to step 533A. Otherwise, the execution of the iteration part of the inner loop is ended and the execution of the process continues to step 535A.)
Regarding Claim 6,12,18
Olcese-Archer-Persson disclosed (re. Claim 6,12,18) wherein the controller data further comprises: the controller computing device carrying out operations of the first instance pair on a first controller thread of execution, (Archer-Column 17 Lines 50-55,Figure 5, the application (158) is implemented as a canonical process with multiple threads (251-254) assigned various duties by a leading thread (251) which itself executes an instance of a parallel application program. Each instance of a parallel application is assigned a task,Column 14 Lines 30-35, more than one instance of an application executes on a single compute node,the rank identifies the instance of the application as such rather than the compute node. A rank uniquely identifies an application's location in the tree network for use in both point-to-point and collective operations in the tree network.) and carrying out operations of the second instance pair on a second controller thread of execution; (Archer-Column 17 Lines 50-55,Figure 5, the application (158) is implemented as a canonical process with multiple threads (251-254) assigned various duties by a leading thread (251) which itself executes an instance of a parallel application program. Each instance of a parallel application is assigned a task,Column 14 Lines 30-35, more than one instance of an application executes on a single compute node,the rank identifies the instance of the application as such rather than the compute node. A rank uniquely identifies an application's location in the tree network for use in both point-to-point and collective operations in the tree network.) and the agent computing device carrying out operations of the first instance pair on a first agent thread of execution, and carrying out operations of the second instance pair on a second agent thread of execution. (Archer-Column 17 Lines 50-55,Figure 5, the application (158) is implemented as a canonical process with multiple threads (251-254) assigned various duties by a leading thread (251) which itself executes an instance of a parallel application program. Each instance of a parallel application is assigned a task,Column 14 Lines 30-35, more than one instance of an application executes on a single compute node,the rank identifies the instance of the application as such rather than the compute node. A rank uniquely identifies an application's location in the tree network for use in both point-to-point and collective operations in the tree network.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights