Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the virtual switch 201". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10-11, 13, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120324442 to Barde.
Regarding claim 1, Barde teaches a physical server, comprising:
a physical machine and a programmable network card device, a virtual machine is deployed on the physical machine, and a virtual switch for data forwarding between different virtual machines is deployed on the programmable network card device (¶ 6, 25, 41, 81, 86);
wherein the programmable network card device comprises a message parsing acceleration module and a hardware message queue implemented based on programmable hardware; the message parsing acceleration module is configured to (figs. 3A, 3B, ¶ 33-35, ¶ 82, 86, 87, message parsing and hardware queue):
receive a target message that needs to be forwarded by the virtual switch (¶ 41, 63-70, 81),
parse header information of the target message to obtain metadata information of the target messages and write the target message and the metadata information to the hardware message queue for the virtual switch to read (¶ 35, 41, 63-70, 81, parsing obtain metadata and writing to queue for switch);
wherein the virtual switch runs on a processor of the programmable network card device and is configured to:
read the target message and the metadata information from the hardware message queue (¶ 63-70),
obtain information to be matched of the target message according to the metadata information (¶ 26-29, 63-70, 81-87, obtaining information to be matched),
match the information to be matched in a forwarding flow table, and forward the target message according to a matched flow table entry (¶ 26-29, 40-41, 49-53, 63-64, 66, flow table lookup matching and forwarding).
Regarding claim 4, 10, 13, 21,
Barde teaches:
wherein the message parsing acceleration module is specifically configured to:
perform keyword parsing on the header information of the target message to obtain a value of each protocol field corresponding to a specified protocol type in the header information (¶ 61-62, parsing header for protocol information; see also 62-70); and
generate the metadata information according to the value of each protocol field corresponding to the specified protocol type in the header information ¶ 26-29, 63-70, 81-87, generation of metadata);
the virtual switch is specifically configured to: obtain the value of each protocol field corresponding to the specified protocol type in the metadata information as the information to be matched (¶ 26-29, 40-41, 49-53, 63-64, 66, obtaining metadata and matching; flow table lookup matching and forwarding).
Claims 7, 11 and 17 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2-3, 8-9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde in view of US 20140056151 to Petrus
Regarding claim 2, 8, 12, 20,
Barde fails to teach but Petrus teaches:
wherein the message parsing acceleration module is specifically configured to:
pre-parse the header information of the target message to obtain respective position offsets of multiple protocol fields in the header information; and generate the metadata information according to the respective position offsets of the multiple protocol fields in the header information (¶ 14-24, parsing header information for offset positions; generation of metadata).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Petrus. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Petrus would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating transmission of packets through virtual networks (Petrus, ¶ 20-23).
Regarding claim 3, 9,
Barde fails to teach but Petrus teaches:
wherein the virtual switch is specifically configured to:
obtain a value of each protocol field corresponding to a specified protocol type from the header information of the target message as the information to be matched according to the respective position offsets of the multiple protocol fields in the metadata information (¶ 14-24). Motivation to include Petrus is the same as presented above.
Claim 5, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde in view of US 20050147126 to Qiu.
Regarding claim 5, 14, 22,
Barde teaches:
wherein the message parsing acceleration module is further configured to:
generate parsed additional information according to a parsing result of the header information of the target message, and use the parsed additional information as part of the metadata information (¶ 26-29, 40-41, 49-53, 63-64, 66, 81);
Barde fails to teach but Qiu teaches:
the parsed additional information comprises at least one of first identifier information indicating whether the target message supports hardware parsing, second identifier information indicating whether the parsing result is incorrect in a case that the target message supports hardware parsing, and protocol characteristic information of the parsed target message (¶ 47, identifier indicating support for hardware parsing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Qiu . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Qiu would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating large packet transfer and the efficient utilization of processing resources (Qiu, ¶ 32, 47).
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde and Petrus in view of US 20050147126 to Qiu.
Regarding claim 18, 19,
Barde teaches:
wherein the message parsing acceleration module is further configured to:
generate parsed additional information according to a parsing result of the header information of the target message, and use the parsed additional information as part of the metadata information (¶ 26-29, 40-41, 49-53, 63-64, 66, 81);
Barde fails to teach but Qiu teaches:
the parsed additional information comprises at least one of first identifier information indicating whether the target message supports hardware parsing, second identifier information indicating whether the parsing result is incorrect in a case that the target message supports hardware parsing, and protocol characteristic information of the parsed target message (¶ 47, identifier indicating support for hardware parsing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Qiu . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Qiu would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating large packet transfer and the efficient utilization of processing resources (Qiu, ¶ 32, 47).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
