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 § 103
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 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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12,14, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Boyd et al. (US 7,395,367).
As per claim 1, 12, 14, and 18, Boyd teaches a heterogeneous (col.3,lines 43-61) server system, comprising: a first computing node (part of Root Nodes (RN), Fig. 1, 160, col.3,lines 6-23), configured to provide a first service (col.3,lines 24-28); a second computing node (part RNs, Fig. 1, 162-166), configured to provide a second service (col.3,lines 24-28); and a computing resource node (part of PCI configuration manager (PCM), 148, Fig.1, 4,5), comprising a switch (“… PCI family fabric that supports multiple root nodes through the use of multiple switches, fabric 144 is shown in FIG. 3 to comprise a plurality of PCIe switches (or PCI family bridges) 302, 304 and 306. FIG. 3 further shows switches 302, 304 and 306 provided with ports 308-314, 316-324 and 326-330, respectively. The switches 302 and 304 are referred to as multi-root aware switches, for reasons described hereinafter. It is to be understood that the term "switch", when used herein by itself, may include both switches and bridge,” col 4,lines 43-53) and a computing processing unit connected to the switch (col.4, lines 42-col.5,lines 1-61), wherein the computing processing unit (part of PCI configuration manager (PCM), 148, Fig.1, 4,5) is configured to perform at least a part of a computing task of the first service or the second service (“…some functionality is needed in the bridges that connect IOAs to the I/O bus so as to be able to assign resources, such as individual IOAs or parts of IOAs to separate partitions; and, at the same time, prevent the assigned resources from affecting other partitions such as by obtaining access to resources of the other partitions, col.4,lines 36-41), wherein the switch is connected to the first computing node and the second computing node, and is switchable between a first state and a second state, wherein in the first state, the switch connects the computing processing unit to the first computing node, and in the second state, the switch connects the computing processing unit to the second computing node.
Boyd discloses initially designating one of said root nodes to be the master root node, operating said master root node to configure routings through switches each corresponding to one of the root nodes and during a time when the remaining root nodes are in a quiescent state enabling a particular root node to access only components included in the configured routings (i.e. switch between a first state of RN to a second state of RN) that correspond to the particular root node. Boyd expressly mentions that components are PCI components and switches are PCI switches; therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the PCM is aware of resources available and the each of the configured routings corresponding to only a single one (first node or second node) of the root nodes (RN). Therein, each root node is enabled to access only PCI switches and adapters which are included in configured routings that correspond to the root node.
As per claim 2. The heterogeneous server system according to claim 1, wherein the switch is a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) switch; the computing processing unit is connected to a downstream port of the switch via a PCIe cable; the first computing node and the second computing node are connected to a first port and a second port of the switch via a PCIe cable, respectively, and in the first state, the first port is set as an upstream port of the switch and the second port is closed, and in the second state, the second port is set as the upstream port of the switch and the first port is closed. (col.4, lines 42-col.5,lines 1-61, Figs. 3-5)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 4 states “…the computing resource node further comprises a baseboard management controller, the switch further comprises an internal processor, and switching of the switch between the first state and the second state is implemented as follows: the switch is configured to enable the baseboard management controller to communicate with the internal processor; the internal processor obtains and saves a PCIe topology of the downstream port; in the first state, the baseboard management controller configures the first port as the upstream port of the switch and closes the second port, and the switch provides the PCIe topology to the first computing node; and in the second state, the baseboard management controller configures the second port as the upstream port of the switch and closes the first port, and the switch provides the PCIe topology to the second computing node.” Claim 5 states “….the heterogeneous server system comprises a plurality of second computing nodes; the computing resource node comprises a plurality of switches and a plurality of computing processing units; wherein the plurality of computing processing units are divided into a plurality of groups, and each group is connected to one of the plurality of switches; wherein the first computing node is connected to at least two of the plurality of switches; wherein each of the plurality of second computing nodes is connected to at least one of the plurality of switches, and a quantity of switches connected with the second computing node is calculated based on a quantity of computing processing units required for the second service and a connection architecture between the computing processing units and the switches; and wherein a quantity of switches connected with the first computing node is greater than the quantity of switches connected with the second computing node.” Further, claims 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, and 20 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tammara Peyton whose telephone number is (571) 272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30- 6:00 from Monday to Thursday, (I am off every first Friday), and 7:30- 4:00 every second Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Henry Tsai can be reached on (571)272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272- 2100.
/TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights