CTNF 19/094,606 CTNF 87344 DETAILED ACTION 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. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Specification Objections The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: ¶ 0001 : Add the corresponding parent patent number. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 : Change to “…load, on [[a]] the host system, an endpoint driver associated with a computing endpoint,…” (page 3). Claim 19 : Change to “…load, on [[a]] the host system, an endpoint driver associated with a computing endpoint,…” (page 5) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Claims 1, 14, and 19 recite: loading, on a host system, an endpoint driver associated with a computing endpoint, the endpoint driver including instructions that identify a memory register on the computing endpoint having mapping information that indicates a memory location of diagnostic data maintained on the computing endpoint; determining that a failure condition exists on the computing endpoint, the failure condition indicating a condition of the computing endpoint that triggers the computing endpoint to generate a dump of diagnostic memory in which the diagnostic information is stored on the computing endpoint; accessing, based on determining that the failure condition exists and in accordance with the instructions of the endpoint driver, the memory register on the computing endpoint to determine the memory location of the diagnostic data; and collecting the diagnostic data from the computing endpoint based on the mapping information included within the memory register on the computing endpoint. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 1 is a process. Claim 14 is a machine. Claim 19 is an article of manufacture. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘identify’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation associated with data. The ‘determining’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘loading’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception . For example, “loading” in the context of this claim encompasses applying generic computer instructions to the aforementioned ‘identify’ step. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘triggers…to generate’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “triggering” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The ‘accessing’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The ‘collecting’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “collecting” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements: a host system (Claims 1, 14, and 19), one or more processors (Claims 14 and 19), memory (Claim 14), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Claim 19). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception . Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, with regards to # 4-6 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claims 2, 11, and 15 merely further describe the claimed computing endpoint of Claims 1 and 14, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Claims 3 and 15 recite: wherein the host system and the computing endpoint are coupled via a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) communication link, and wherein collecting the diagnostic data from the computing endpoint includes receiving the diagnostic data via the PCIe communication link. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 3 is a process. Claim 15 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). See respective independent Claims 1 and 14. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. In # 7 above, the claimed host system and computing endpoint of Claims 1 and 14, respectively, are further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The ‘receiving’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. With regards to # 8 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Claims 4, 16, and 20 merely further describe the claimed determining step of Claims 1, 14, and 19, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Claims 5, 16, and 20 recite: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on receiving an interrupt signal from the computing endpoint indicating availability of the dump of diagnostic memory on the computing endpoint at the memory location corresponding to the mapping information. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 5 is a process. Claim 16 is a machine. Claim 20 is an article of manufacture. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). See respective independent Claims 1, 14, and 19. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘receiving’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering associated with an abstract idea (the claimed ‘determining’). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. With regards to # 9 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Claims 6, 16, and 20 recite: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on determining that the computing endpoint has generated the dump of diagnostic memory at an unscheduled time. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 6 is a process. Claim 16 is a machine. Claim 20 is an article of manufacture. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘determining’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data. Claims 7 and 17 recite: wherein determining that the failure condition exist comprises: periodically polling the computing endpoint; and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on a failure of the computing endpoint to provide a response to one or multiple polling instances of the periodic polling of the computing endpoint. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 7 is a process. Claim 17 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘polling’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “polling” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making repeated observations associated with data. The ‘determining’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data. Claims 8 and 17 recite: wherein determining that the failure condition exists comprises: periodically accessing a discoverable value associated with the memory register; and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on the discoverable value reading a value associated with the failure condition. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 8 is a process. Claim 17 is a machine. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The ‘determining’ limitation in # 14 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘accessing’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses repeated mere data gathering associated with an abstract idea (the claimed ‘determining’). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. With regards to # 13 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claims 9 and 18 merely further describe the claimed determining step of Claims 1 and 14, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Claim 10 recites: wherein loading the endpoint driver further comprises configuring an endpoint-specific driver on the host system having instructions associated with determining that the failure condition exists and collecting the diagnostic data in response to determining that the failure condition exists. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 10 is a process. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). See independent Claim 1. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘configuring’ limitation in # 15 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception . For example, “configuring” in the context of this claim encompasses configuring instructions associated with a generic computing component (the claimed ‘driver’) to accomplish an abstract idea (the claimed ‘determining’) and a further additional element (the claimed ‘collecting’). See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ‘collecting’ limitation in # 16 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “collecting” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. With regards to # 16 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claim 12 recites: storing, at the host system, a plurality of identifiers of a plurality of memory registers on a plurality of computing endpoints, the plurality of memory registers including mapping information indicating memory locations of diagnostic data maintained on respective computing endpoints of the plurality of computing endpoints. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes: Claim 12 is a process. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). See independent Claim 1. Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ‘storing’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity . For example, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data storage. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. With regards to # 17 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Claim 13 merely further describes the claimed memory register and mapping information of Claim 1 in the context of (a) field(s) of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1-20 are patent ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 8-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Tian (U.S. Patent No. US 9,442,794 B1), hereinafter “Tian.” With regards to Claim 1, Tian teaches: a method, comprising: loading, on a host system (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 44-67; and col. 5, lines 1-11; regarding, e.g., host CPU 112.) , an endpoint driver (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 44-67; and col. 5, lines 1-11; regarding, e.g., device driver 114.) associated with a computing endpoint (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 44-67; and col. 5, lines 1-11; regarding, e.g., device 108. As interpreted by the Examiner, if the device driver 114 is initially stored on memory 104 and then is executing on the host CPU 112, then it must be loaded from the memory 104 on to the host CPU 112.) , the endpoint driver including instructions that identify a memory register on the computing endpoint having mapping information that indicates a memory location of diagnostic data maintained on the computing endpoint (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 65-67; col. 6, lines 1-13; col. 6, lines 35-67; col. 7, lines 1-6; regarding, e.g., SDIO scratch register [a memory register]; and col. 8, lines 29-50; and col. 8, lines 29-50.) ; determining that a failure condition exists on the computing endpoint (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 36-47; col. 5, lines 65-67; and col. 6, lines 1-13; regarding, e.g., if the device driver 114 does not receive a response to the command in acknowledgement from the firmware 110 for a duration of time.) , the failure condition indicating a condition of the computing endpoint that triggers the computing endpoint to generate a dump of diagnostic memory in which the diagnostic information is stored on the computing endpoint (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 65-67; col. 6, lines 1-13; col. 6, lines 35-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6.) ; accessing, based on determining that the failure condition exists and in accordance with the instructions of the endpoint driver, the memory register on the computing endpoint to determine the memory location of the diagnostic data (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 35-67; col. 7, lines 1-6; and col. 8, lines 29-50.) ; and collecting the diagnostic data from the computing endpoint based on the mapping information included within the memory register on the computing endpoint (Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 7-9; and col. 8, lines 29-50.) . With regards to Claim 2, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein the computing endpoint comprises a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) endpoint (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 5-11.) . With regards to Claim 3, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein the host system and the computing endpoint are coupled via a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) communication link (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 5-11; regarding, e.g., data bus / SDIO bus 118.) , and wherein collecting the diagnostic data from the computing endpoint includes receiving the diagnostic data via the PCIe communication link (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 35-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6.) . With regards to Claim 4, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on non-responsiveness of the computing endpoint to one or more communications from the host system (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 36-47; col. 5, lines 65-67; and col. 6, lines 1-13.) . With regards to Claim 8, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists comprises: periodically accessing a discoverable value associated with the memory register (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 50-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6. As interpreted by the Examiner, ‘periodically’ is indicated by continually checking for the 0xa value.) ; and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on the discoverable value reading a value associated with the failure condition (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 50-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6.) . With regards to Claim 9, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is performed by the host system without the computing endpoint transmitting an indication of the failure condition over a communication link between the host system and the computing endpoint (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 65-67; and col. 6, lines 1-13.) . With regards to Claim 10, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein loading the endpoint driver further comprises configuring an endpoint-specific driver on the host system having instructions associated with determining that the failure condition exists and collecting the diagnostic data in response to determining that the failure condition exists (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 57-64; col. 5, lines 65-67; and col. 6, lines 1-13.) . With regards to Claim 13, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein the memory register further includes address information for the host system, and wherein the mapping information indicates a range of memory addresses on the computing endpoint that are exposed to the host system based on a source address of the host system matching address information within the memory register (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 50-67; col. 7, lines 1-6; and col. 8, lines 29-50; regarding, e.g., a range of memory addresses indicated by length=0 to length=TOTAL_LEN.) . With regards to Claim 14, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Tian. Tian further teaches: a system (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 15-27; Fig. 5; and col. 12, lines 54-58.) , comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 15-27; Fig. 5; and col. 13, lines 27-31.) ; memory in electronic communication with the one or more processors (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 15-27; Fig. 5; and col. 13, lines 36-60.) ; and instructions stored in the memory, the instructions being executable by the one or more processors (Fig. 5; col. 13, lines 27-31; and col. 13, lines 36-60.) . With regards to Claim 15, Tian teaches the system of Claim 14 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein the computing endpoint comprises a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) endpoint (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 5-11.) , and wherein the host system and the computing endpoint are coupled via a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) communication link (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 5-11; regarding, e.g., data bus / SDIO bus 118.) , and wherein collecting the diagnostic data from the computing endpoint includes receiving the diagnostic data via the PCIe communication link (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 35-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6.) . With regards to Claim 16, Tian teaches the system of Claim 14 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on one or more of: non-responsiveness of the computing endpoint to one or more communications from the host system (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 36-47; col. 5, lines 65-67; and col. 6, lines 1-13.) ; receiving an interrupt signal from the computing endpoint indicating availability of the dump of diagnostic memory on the computing endpoint at the memory location corresponding to the mapping information; or determining that the computing endpoint has generated the dump of diagnostic memory at an unscheduled time. With regards to Claim 17, Tian teaches the system of Claim 14 as referenced above. Tian further teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on one or more of: periodically polling the computing endpoint and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on a failure of the computing endpoint to provide a response to one or multiple polling instances of the periodic polling of the computing endpoint; or periodically accessing a discoverable value associated with the memory register (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 50-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6. As interpreted by the Examiner, ‘periodically’ is indicated by continually checking for the 0xa value.) and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on the discoverable value reading a value associated with the failure condition (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 50-67; and col. 7, lines 1-6.) . With regards to Claim 18, Tian teaches the system of Claim 14 as referenced above. The method of Claim 9 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 9 by the teachings of Tian. With regards to Claim 19, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the medium of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Tian. Tian further teaches: a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 15-27; Fig. 5; and col. 13, lines 36-60.) storing instructions thereon (Fig. 5; col. 13, lines 27-31; and col. 13, lines 36-60.) that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 15-27; Fig. 5; and col. 13, lines 27-31.) … With regards to Claim 20, Tian teaches the medium of Claim 19 as referenced above. The system of Claim 16 performs the same steps as the medium of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 16 by the teachings of Tian . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian, and further in view of Douglass et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 11,226,755 B1), hereinafter “Douglass.” With regards to Claim 5, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian does not explicitly teach: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on receiving an interrupt signal from the computing endpoint indicating availability of the dump of diagnostic memory on the computing endpoint at the memory location corresponding to the mapping information in accordance with the method of Claim 1. However, Douglass teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on receiving an interrupt signal from the computing endpoint indicating availability of the dump of diagnostic memory on the computing endpoint at the memory location corresponding to the mapping information (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 18-41; Fig. 2; and col. 5, lines 11-25.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Tian with the use of an interrupt handler triggering a dump as taught by Douglass because a simple substitution of one known element (“enter_debug_mode()” – Tian: Fig. 1 and Tian: col. 6, lines 5-13) for another (a interrupt trigger) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known means for triggering / signaling a diagnostic dump process) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian, and further in view of Lang et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,164,846 B2), hereinafter “Lang.” With regards to Claim 6, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian does not explicitly teach: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on determining that the computing endpoint has generated the dump of diagnostic memory at an unscheduled time in accordance with the method of Claim 1. However, Lang teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exists is based on determining that the computing endpoint has generated the dump of diagnostic memory at an unscheduled time (Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 16-19.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Tian with the triggering of a dump file due to a crashed program as taught by Lang because a simple substitution of one known element (stalled firmware – Tian: col. 5, lines 40-47) for another (a program crash) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known means for triggering / signaling a diagnostic dump process) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian, and further in view of Grimes et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,882,393 B2), hereinafter “Grimes.” With regards to Claim 7, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian does not explicitly teach: wherein determining that the failure condition exist comprises: periodically polling the computing endpoint; and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on a failure of the computing endpoint to provide a response to one or multiple polling instances of the periodic polling of the computing endpoint in accordance with the method of Claim 1. However, Grimes teaches: wherein determining that the failure condition exist comprises: periodically polling the computing endpoint (Fig. 4 and col. 11, lines 36-42; regarding, e.g., using a heartbeat signal based mechanism.) ; and determining that the computing endpoint is experiencing the failure condition based on a failure of the computing endpoint to provide a response to one or multiple polling instances of the periodic polling of the computing endpoint (Fig. 4 and col. 11, lines 36-42.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Tian with failure detection associated with a heartbeat signal as taught by Grimes because a simple substitution of one known element (stalled firmware – Tian: col. 5, lines 40-47) for another (a heartbeat signal loss) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known failure means for triggering / signaling a diagnostic dump process) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian, and further in view of Sasidharan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0340058 A1), hereinafter “Sasidharan.” With regards to Claim 11, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian does not explicitly teach: wherein the computing endpoint comprises one or more of a graphics processing unit (GPU), a storage controller, a network adapter, or a processing accelerator in accordance with the method of Claim 1. However, Sasidharan teaches: wherein the computing endpoint comprises one or more of a graphics processing unit (GPU), a storage controller (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0024; regarding, e.g., a device controller.) , a network adapter, or a processing accelerator. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Tian with the use of a device controller as an endpoint as taught by Sasidharan because a simple substitution of one known element (any type of general device – Tian: Fig. 1 and Tian: col. 4, lines 28-32) for another (a device controller) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known components for receiving driver commands and/or other communications) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian, and further in view of Watkins et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 8,402,320 B2), hereinafter “Watkins.” With regards to Claim 12, Tian teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Tian does not explicitly teach: storing, at the host system, a plurality of identifiers of a plurality of memory registers on a plurality of computing endpoints, the plurality of memory registers including mapping information indicating memory locations of diagnostic data maintained on respective computing endpoints of the plurality of computing endpoints in accordance with the method of Claim 1. However, Watkins teaches: storing, at the host system, a plurality of identifiers of a plurality of memory registers on a plurality of computing endpoints, the plurality of memory registers including mapping information indicating memory locations of diagnostic data maintained on respective computing endpoints of the plurality of computing endpoints (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 5-25; Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 39-67; and col. 6, line 1.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Tian with a PCIe architecture that handles errors associated with multiple endpoints as taught by Watkins because error detection, occurring in real time, and error processing (e.g. updating status and error logging registers) can be performed in parallel, thereby providing error handling efficiency in shared-resource environment (Watkins: col. 2, lines 42-53). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET. 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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. /JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 2 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 3 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 4 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 5 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 6 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 7 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 8 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 9 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 10 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 11 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 12 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 13 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 14 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 15 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 16 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 17 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 18 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 19 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 20 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 21 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 22 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 23 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 24 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 25 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/094,606 Page 26 Art Unit: 2114
Prosecution Insights