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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application filed on 6/4/2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/17/2026, 5/8/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Objection to the Abstract
The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof,
regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains (MPEP 608.01 (b)). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract merely repeats the claim language and does not enable the reader thereof to determine the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
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.
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.
Claims 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.
Claim 1: The term "respectively" in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "respectively" 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.
Claim 14: The term "respectively" in line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "respectively" 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.
Claim 15: The term "respectively" in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "respectively" 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.
Claim 1: The term "portion" in lines 4, 5, 7 and 9 is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "portion" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, particularly when the specification discloses “portion of the results of an EPU” and “portion of the network” [0024]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15: The term "portion" in lines 4-5, 7, and 9 is/are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "portion" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, particularly when the specification discloses “portion of the results of an EPU” and “portion of the network” [0024]. Thus, 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 § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yudanov et al. (US 20210334234 A1) hereinafter “Yudanov”.
As to claim 1, Yudanov discloses for a plurality of graphics processing units (GPUs) that perform computations to execute a distributed application, a method for forwarding a first result of a first computation performed by a source GPU to a destination GPU through a network connecting the GPUs (Yudanov [09-10, 24-27, 46], discloses a distributed graphics processor unit (GPU) architecture that includes an array of processing nodes, wherein a GPU-based system that may be treated as a storage unit that performs onboard processing to perform memory-oriented operations), the method comprising:
identifying first and second portions of the first result (Yudanov [22-25, 40-42], discloses wherein a data input may be processed in parallel in a set of GPU nodes operating in parallel as portions of the data input is provided via one or more buses, and wherein the distributed GPU drive can identify the data that is subject to being processed and then buffer the identified data into onboard memory);
selecting, respectively for the first and second portions, first and second paths through the network from the source GPU to the destination GPU (Yudanov [20-24, 57-60], discloses wherein the distributed GPU drive, where each GPU nodes reads/writes data to a respective storage unit over a respective local bus, and the data input may be processed in parallel in a set of GPU nodes operating in parallel as portions of the data input is provided to the interface controller);
forwarding, from the source GPU, the first portion as a first data message flow that traverses along the first path to the destination GPU (Yudanov [27-31, 52-54], discloses wherein the host system/CPU uses the distributed GPU drive to transmit a message to the distributed GPU drive, where the message includes an operation/instruction to carry out a particular task, and the message is transmitted by the device driver after it is transferred to the host system to the coherent fabric of the distributed GPU drive, including parameters and/or data); and
forwarding, from the source GPU, the second portion as a second data message flow that traverses along the second path to the destination GPU (Yudanov [56-60], discloses wherein the cluster of GPU nodes that execute a user-level application can generate video graphics that is transmitted to a host system for display to a user, wherein a graphical user interface rendered on a display allows the user to transmit instructions and receive output from the distributed GPU).
As to claim 2, Yudanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the source GPU comprises a source endpoint interface (EPI) comprising a plurality of ports through which the source GPU connects to the network, and said forwarding comprises forwarding the first data message flow through a first port of the source EPI, and forwarding the second data message flow through a second port of the source EPI (Yudanov [27-31, 52-53, 57-58], discloses wherein the distributed GPU drive, wherein the computations performed by the GPU nodes can be orchestrated in a distributed manner via coherent fabric, and each of the processing nodes may include a set of user-defined or pre-compiled primitive programs that perform certain compute operations with the data stored on that processing node as well as the data coming from other processing nodes).
As to claim 3, Yudanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the source GPU comprises first and second source endpoint interface (EPI) each of which comprises a plurality of ports through which the source GPU connects to the network, and said forwarding comprises forwarding the first data message flow through a first port of the source EPI, and forwarding the second data message flow through a second port of the source EPI (Yudanov [27-31, 52-53, 57-58], discloses wherein the distributed GPU drive, wherein the computations performed by the GPU nodes can be orchestrated in a distributed manner via coherent fabric, and each of the processing nodes may include a set of user-defined or pre-compiled primitive programs that perform certain compute operations with the data stored on that processing node as well as the data coming from other processing nodes, and the host OS may relay messages requested by a user to be forwarded to the distributed GPU drive).
As to claim 6, Yudanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each data message of each flow comprises a layer 2 (L2) header that stores information for performing forwarding operations through one or more switches and a layer 4 (L4) header that stores a set of one or more transport layer protocol (TLP) parameters to ensure reliable transport of the data messages in the flow to the destination GPU, and the network comprises a plurality of L2 switches for processing the L2 headers of the data messages (Yudanov [27-31, 52-53, 57-58], discloses wherein the operating system that transmits a message may first interface with the distributed GPU drive to determine status of sequencer/controller of each GPU node prior to transmitting a message, and the cluster of GPU nodes that execute a user-level application may generate video graphics that is transmitted to a host system for display to a user. In this respect, a graphical user interface rendered on a display allows the user to transmit instructions and receive output from the distributed GPU drive).
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 (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.
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) 4-5, 7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudanov et al. (US 20210334234 A1) hereinafter “Yudanov” in view of Hong et al. (US 20160294935 A1) hereinafter “Hong”.
As to claim 4, Yudanov discloses the method of claim 1, however doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the destination GPU comprises a destination EPI comprising a plurality of ports through which the destination GPU connects to the network, said first and second data message flows are received at the destination GPU through first and second ports of the destination EPI, and the destination EPI assembles the first result by extracting payloads of the first and second data message flows that collectively contain the first and second portions, and stores the first and second portions in a memory of the destination GPU.
Hong [41-44, 73-76] discloses wherein the requests are part of data messages that identify all the content servers collectively, by using the content server VIP address as the destination IP address in the data packet headers, and wherein a layer 4 connection session, a TCP/IP session, with the source compute node of the content request, so that the DCS filter can receive one or more payload packets for the session, in order to extract the requested content type from the payload packets).
Yudanov and Hong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of managing distributed resources. 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 Yudanov and Hong before him or her, to modify the distributed processing architecture system of Yudanov to include the payload extraction feature of Hong with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is able to extract payload from received messages and assembles them on the destination node. This method of improving the distributed processing resources architecture of Yudanov was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hong. 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 Yudanov with Hong to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 5, Yudanov-Hong discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the destination GPU comprises first and second destination EPIs each comprising a plurality of ports through which the destination GPU connects to the network, said first and second data message flows are received at the destination GPU through a first port of the first destination EPI and a second port of the second destination EPI (Hong [40-42, 59-60] discloses wherein the load balancer set distributes each content request, each data packet that has the content-server VIP address as its destination IP address in its packet header, based on a hash of the packet's five-tuple identifiers, a hash of the source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination port, and protocol) without considering the type of content that is requested), and
the destination EPIs assemble the first result by extracting payloads of the first and second data message flows that collectively contain the first and second portions, and store the first and second portions in a memory of the destination GPU (Hong [41-44, 73-76], the source compute node of the content request, so that the DCS filter can receive one or more payload packets for the session, in order to extract the requested content type from the payload packets). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Yudanov and Hong as in claim 4 above.
As to claim 7, Yudanov discloses the method of claim 6, however doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the set of TLP parameters of each data message comprises a segment identifier (ID) that identifies a particular segment of the first result that is contained in a payload of the data message. However Hong [31-33, 84-87] discloses wherein the DCS filter uses to identify the content type is by extracting the URL and/or URL parameters that are contained in the payload packets, and the URL and/or URL parameters often contain the name or acronym of the type of content being requested, so that the DCS filter can receive one or more payload packets for the session, in order to extract the requested content type from the payload packet). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Yudanov and Hong as in claim 4 above.
Claim 14 is/are corresponding method claim that recite similar limitations as of claims 45, and 7 and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, claim 14 is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 15-20 are corresponding method claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 1-7 and 14, and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also 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 no(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 the 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 CFR 1.111(c).
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
Prosecution Insights