DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argue that the claims are allowable because :
Examiner Responses to: “General Remarks”
“the Applicant does not believe that it is proper to change the statutory basis between 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 without the new rejection being a new ground of rejection. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are different statutes, with different rules that are applicable. Changing the rejection from one statutory basis to another changes the applicability of the rejection to the claims, even with the same rationale, and therefore should be a new ground of rejection.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According the MPEP, “Second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)).” (MPEP 706.07(a), emphasis added). In this case, Applicant’s amendment to the claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Examiner Responses to: “Response to Applicant’s Arguments”
Applicant’s argument in the “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” section of the Applicant’s remarks related to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Examiner Responses to: “Claim Rejections”
Applicant’s arguments are have been fully considered and the 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Examiner Responses to: “Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 103”
“the function to be executed from the application identifier is not user data. “User data" may be understood to be data that is stored on the storage device by a user, or "data being used by applications" (see specification, page 5, line 22). "User data" would not be a function to be executed based on an event occurring in an application, as in Satou.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 15).
“"each operational status transmitted from each application program" (see Satou, 1 68). But the operational status in Satou is not stored anywhere: it is transmitted by the application programs to the start-judgment unit of Satou. Further, the claim recites user data, which would be understood to be data of a user. The operational status of an application program in Satou is not user data.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 15.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s remarks state that ““User data" may be understood to be data that is stored on the storage device by a user, or "data being used by applications" (see specification, page 5, line 22).” Satou teaches the claimed “user data” (i.e. data stored on the storage device by a user interacting with an application):
[0059], in the case where a button for starting movie shooting is pressed by a user, an event that includes: an application identifier indicating an application program for controlling a camera and the like (hereinafter referred to as "camera application"); an event identifier indicating "movie shooting"; and event information including information indicating the button pressed by the user, is transmitted from the middleware 102 to the system management apparatus 101;
[0063], condition storage unit 105 is a storage device that stores a start-judgment condition associated with a corresponding one of event identifiers of plural types. The start-judgment condition is information indicating a status of the mobile terminal 10, the status being a condition for whether or not to start the application program;
[0068], the status obtainment unit 106 obtains each operational status transmitted from each application program; and
[0199], when the operational status of the application program changes, the status obtainment unit 106 may receive and store information of the change regardless of presence or absence of a request from the start-judgment unit 104).
In response to “But the operational status in Satou is not stored anywhere: it is transmitted by the application programs to the start-judgment unit of Satou.” Satou’s teaching of transmitting an operation status teaches storage because it would need to be stored to be transmitted. (Abstract, The start-judgment unit (104) judges whether or not to start the application program according to whether or not the status of the information processing system obtained by the status obtainment unit (106); and [0068], the status obtainment unit 106 obtains each operational status transmitted from each application program, and notifies the start-judgment unit 104 of these operational statuses as a response to the request for obtainment).
“the Office Action points to various different parts of Satou as teaching the recited storage features: ¶ 63 as teaching the recited first storage, and ¶ 55-57 as teaching the recited second storage. But ¶ 63 of Satou describes the condition storage unit: even if the condition storage unit of Satou could be considered a storage, it does not appear to store user data, and ¶ 55-57 state that "The event storage unit 103 is a storage device " (see Satou, ¶ 55). A generic reference to a storage device does not appear to be sufficient to teach a storage element, such as flash memory chips 425 of FIG. 4. Nor does a reference to another storage device, such as the event storage unit of Satou, appear to be sufficient to teach a storage element. Note, for example, that FIG. 5 shows the recited storage device as including storage 425 and event table 440: storage 425 may be the recited first storage, and event table 440 may be the recited second storage, both of which may be part of a single storage device 120.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous response, Satou teaches user data in the form of an application status that changed based on user interaction with the application. ([0059], in the case where a button for starting movie shooting is pressed by a user, an event that includes: an application identifier indicating an application program for controlling a camera and the like (hereinafter referred to as "camera application"); an event identifier indicating "movie shooting"; and event information including information indicating the button pressed by the user, is transmitted from the middleware 102 to the system management apparatus 101).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. For example Applicant does not describe how the cited storage elements of Satou are not sufficient to teach a storage element.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “flash memory chips 425 of FIG. 4”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“"where a button for starting movie shooting is pressed by a user, an event is transmitted from the middleware 102 to the system management apparatus 101" (see Satou, I 59). In other words, Satou is concerned with externally triggered events. In contrast, the events recited in the specification may be internally triggered events: for example, "Event IDs 505 may identify events that may occur in storage device 120 of FIG. 1. For example, there may be event IDs for error events, for health status events, for notice events, for command set-specific events, and for vender-defined events" (see specification, page 14, lines 3- 5). If the events occur in storage device, then the events would not appear to be triggered externally, as in Satou”.... Notification of an event is not the same as the triggering of the event, and the fact that Satou might discuss notification of an event, but that fact does not demonstrate that Satou teaches or even suggests that an event is triggered internally. (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation a notification of event can be interpreted to be a trigger when an action is taken in response to the notification. Satou teaches an internal trigger (i.e. notification) of an event:
[0061], when receiving a notification of an event occurrence from the middleware 102, the start-judgment unit 104 judges whether or not to start the application program which is to be notified of the event, based on whether or not a state of the mobile terminal 10, which has been obtained by the status obtainment unit 106, satisfies a start-judgment condition associated with the event identifier obtained from the event storage unit 103; Examiner Note: Satou’s middleware 102 is internal to the storage device (i.e. mobile terminal 10): Fig. 1, Middleware 102)
“the Office Action argues that Takahashi teaches a controller to manage access to the user data in the first storage. But Takahashi describes a server responding to an error report from the error report management unit. The server itself does not appear to be part of a storage device, which would appear to be part of the terminal of Takahashi (see, e.g., Takahashi, column 6, lines 5-20). As the claim recites that the storage device includes the controller, Takahashi actually teaches away from the language of the claim.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Takahashi’s controller is within its storage device (“server 202”). (Fig. 2, Block 205).
“the Office Action argues that Takahashi teaches the server as processing an error. But processing an error is a function of the processor of the claim, not the controller.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takahashi teaches processing the error at the controller. (Column 7, Lines 1-3, server 202, in response to a reception of an error report, starts the processing in the error report management unit 205).
“the error report management unit receives a notification from the error detection unit of the terminal. Such an error would not be an error in accessing user data” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 16).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not 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.
“Takahashi describes the error as occurring in the terminal, but being handled by the server. But this teaching means that Takahashi appears to teach away from the language of the claim, which recites that the error both occurs internally to the storage device and is handled internally to the storage device.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. For example, Applicant has not cited a portion of Takahashi that Applicant believes is erroneously mapped to the claims regarding the error occurring in the terminal.
“In rejecting claim 4, the Office Action argues that Satou teaches that the processor is configured to execute the program on a computational storage unit based at least in part on the second storage and the event, citing I 53 (see Office Action dated December 29, 2025, page 36). The Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, the Office Action does not identify any teaching of Satou that includes a processor configured to execute the program. Without such a teaching, Satou does not appear to teach the features of the claim sufficiently for a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pgs. 16-17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the previous Office Action, Satou teaches a processor. ([0053], the system management apparatus 101 receives an event from the middleware 102 when an event notification from the middleware 102 to the application program occurs. Further, the application program corresponding to the received event is judged and a start of the application program is controlled; and [0246], operations of each component of both of the system management apparatus 101 according to the first embodiment and the system management apparatus 201 according to the second embodiment can be embodied by a computer that includes a central processing unit (CPU)).
“ the specification states that "[d]epending on the desired interpretation, either computational device 310-1 or processor(s) 330 may be thought of as a computational storage unit" (see specification, page 9, lines 14-15). But even if the term "computational storage unit" was considered to be only processor 330, processor 330 (and therefore the recited "computational storage unit" is still part of computational device 310.
The Office Action does not identify what feature of Satou is considered to teach the recited computational storage unit. The closest Satou appears to come to describing a " computational storage unit is where Satou states that the information processing system includes a hardware or a software which has an execution environment for an application " program (see Satou, 1 245). But even with this understanding, Satou does not appear to teach or suggest a computational storage unit, either as a computational device or as a processor within a computational device”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the previous Office Action, Satou teaches a computational storage unit. ([0048], mobile terminal 10 as illustrated in FIG. 1 is an example of an information processing system that is to be managed by the system management apparatus of the present invention, and is a mobile terminal including plural applications software).
“There does not appear any interpretation of Satou that would show three separate components each communicating with the others. Indeed, Satou does not even appear to teach more than one component: the mobile terminal.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., computational storage unit being separately connected to the host) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the specification states that the storage unit and computational storage unit may be combined. (Applicant’s Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 14-18, Depending on the desired interpretation, either computational device 310-1 or processor(s) 330 may be thought of as a computational storage unit. Whereas FIG. 3A shows storage device 305 and computational device 310-1 as separate devices, in FIG. 3B they may be combined. Thus, computational device 310-2 may include controller 315, storage 320-1, and processor(s) 330 offering services 335-1 and 335-2; and Pg. 17, Lines 25-30, In FIG. 6, computational storage unit 135 is shown as within storage device 120, but embodiments of the disclosure may function with computational storage unit 135 being outside storage device 12).
“The Office Action argues that Satou teaches that application programs may be added. But the claim does not merely recite that the program is added to the computational storage unit: the claim recites that the program is received as a download from the host. Nowhere does Satou appear to teach or suggest that the application program may be downloaded from a host” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the previous Office Action, Satou teaches this feature. ([0118], as an example of the case where an application program is added to the mobile terminal 10, a new application program is installed into the mobile terminal 10, by downloading the new application program via a network).
“The "operational status" of Satou only appears to indicate if the program is executing or not: the "operational status" of Satou only appears to indicate if the program is already executing, and does not appear to factor into whether or a program should be executed: for example, based on the fact that the program was executed previously. Satou therefore appears to teach away from the state information including information about whether the program was executed previously.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Satou was not used to reject this feature. As cited in the previous Office Action, the combination of Satou-Takahashi teaches this feature (Takahashi Column 14, Lines 47-53, the application management unit 203 reports the number of times of execution of each application that has been recorded. The server 202 receives the report and increments the number of times of execution in the application execution state management table 2101 being managed by the terminal information management unit 206).
“nowhere does Takahashi appear to teach or suggest tracking the number of times the program is downloaded from the server. And further, even if Takahashi might track how many times a particular program was downloaded from the server, that count in no way indicates how many times the program was executed..” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 19).
The previous response is applicable to this argument
Applicant’s remaining arguments on pages 20-27 of the remarks are addressed in the responses recited above with exception to the following arguments:
“the Office Action argues that Takahashi teaches that the server teaches the host, and is external to the terminal, which teaches the storage device. But this interpretation is contrary to the way Takahashi is interpreted in rejecting claim 1, where the server was considered to teach the controller, which was claimed part of the storage device. It is not reasonable for the Office Action to argue that the server of Takahashi is both external to the storage device (in rejecting claim 10) and part of the storage device (in rejecting claim 1).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The controller was mapped to Takahashi’s “error report management unit” in claim 1 and the host is mapped to Takahashi’s “terminal 201.”
“the claim recites that the application that issues the request that triggers the access of the user data is executing on the host, which is external to the storage device. But the applications in Takahashi execute on the terminal (see, e.g., Takahashi, column 5, lines 28-30). Given that the Office Action has argued that the terminal of Takahashi teaches the recited storage device (for the server of Takahashi to be external to the storage device), Takahashi teaches away from the language of the claim.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 23).
“Office Action has analogized the recited host to the be server of Takahashi in rejecting parent claim 10. Nowhere does Takahashi appear to teach or suggest that the application distribution server is the same server as handles the error in the application.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 23).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takahashi’s “server 202” is mapped to the claimed storage device. Takahashi’s “terminal 201” is mapped to the host and is external to the storage device. (Fig. 2, SEVER 202 and TERMINAL 201; and Column 5, Lines 16-17, The server 202 can be interconnected with many connectable terminals 201; Column 7, Lines 1-3, server 202, in response to a reception of an error report, starts the processing in the error report management unit 205: Examiner Note: error report management unit 205 is a part of server 202: Fig. 2).
“the Office Action argues that Satou teaches "the event storage unit 103 may hold the received event as it is (see Office Action dated December 29, 2025, page 16), and that the event may include both an application identifier and an event identifier. But absent from the rejection is any explanation of this association being received from a host, as recited in the claims. Nor does the Applicant believe Satou teaches the concept that the association may be received from a host.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 24).
Lei does not appear to teach or suggest that a storage device receives an association between two identifiers, one of which identifies an event and the other of which identifies a program, from a host. 11 84-85 of Lei only says that a notification is received, with no mention of the source of the notification. And 1 195 of Lei says that the cloud server receives the event information and the identifier of the terminal. Lei does not appear to teach or suggest any association between two identifiers, and certainly not between an identifier of an event and an identifier of a program. (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 24).
Examiner respectfully agrees. As stated in the Office Action, Lei teaches this feature. Li’s notification associates a terminal with an application event and its associated application program. ([0084], the cloud server includes:[0085] a receiver, configured to receive a notification message sent by a terminal, where the notification message includes information about a to-be-handled application event in an application program in the terminal; and [0195], the cloud server obtains the application event information and the identifier of the terminal from the notification message).
“Satou appears to teach away from the combination with Lei. According to Satou, "[t]he event storage unit 103 is a storage device in which an event corresponding to the application program transmitted from the middleware 102 is temporarily stored" (see Satou, 1 55). In other words, Satou appears to describe receiving an event from the middleware, and not from the host. ” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 24).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Satou teaches a method of application management based on detected events. Takahashi teaches a method of application management based on application information and information about the host executing the application. Lei teaches a method of managing application events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that based on the combination, the system management apparatus taught by the combination of Satou-Takahashi would be modified to include Lei’s receiver resulting in a system that is capable of receiving and managing events from an external host. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the combination of Satou-Takahashi and Lei.
“But the claim recites that the device sends an asynchronous event notification to the host: the opposite direction from Stevens. Therefore, Stevens does not appear to suggest the features of the claim.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 25).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous Office Action, Stevens teaches this feature. (Abstract, A method is provided for asynchronous notifications from a device to a host in systems without requiring hardware provision for asynchronous operations).
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.
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, 4-6, 8-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20100229184) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 9753837).
As per claim 1, Satou teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a storage device ([0047], mobile terminal 10), comprising:
a first storage for a user data ([0063], condition storage unit 105 is a storage device that stores a start-judgment condition associated with a corresponding one of event identifiers of plural types. The start-judgment condition is information indicating a status of the mobile terminal 10, the status being a condition for whether or not to start the application program; [0064], information indicating a state of the above mobile terminal 10 is the information indicating an operational status of a predetermined application program; and [0199], when the operational status of the application program changes, the status obtainment unit 106 may receive and store information of the change regardless of presence or absence of a request from the start-judgment unit 104), the user data including data written or read by an application ([0066], status obtainment unit 106 obtains an operational status of each application program as the state of the mobile terminal 10; [0068], the status obtainment unit 106 obtains each operational status transmitted from each application program);
a second storage to store an association between a first identifier and a second identifier (Fig. 1; and [0055], The event storage unit 103 is a storage device in which an event corresponding to the application program transmitted from the middleware 102 is temporarily stored; [0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an event identifier, an application identifier, and event information; and [0057], The event identifier is information for identifying an event, and the application identifier is information for identifying an application program which is to be notified of the event, in other words, the application program that is to process the event), the first identifier for an event ([0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an event identifier) and the second identifier for a program ([0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an …an application identifier); and
a processor to receive the event ([0053], the system management apparatus 101 receives an event from the middleware 102 when an event notification from the middleware 102 to the application program occurs. Further, the application program corresponding to the received event is judged and a start of the application program is controlled; and [0246], operations of each component of both of the system management apparatus 101 according to the first embodiment and the system management apparatus 201 according to the second embodiment can be embodied by a computer that includes a central processing unit (CPU)) and execute the program based at least in part on the second storage and the event ([0014], the system management apparatus according to the present invention is a system management apparatus which manages an information processing system capable of executing an application program; and [0053], the application program corresponding to the received event is judged and a start of the application program is controlled),
wherein the event is triggered internally to the storage device based at least in part on the access of the user data in the first storage ([0061], when receiving a notification of an event occurrence from the middleware 102, the start-judgment unit 104 judges whether or not to start the application program which is to be notified of the event, based on whether or not a state of the mobile terminal 10, which has been obtained by the status obtainment unit 106, satisfies a start-judgment condition associated with the event identifier obtained from the event storage unit 103; Examiner Note: Satou’s middleware 102 is internal to the storage device (i.e. mobile terminal 10): Fig. 1, Middleware 102).
Satou fails to specifically teach, a controller to manage access to the user data in the first storage based at least in part on a request from an application executing on a host; and wherein the host is external to the storage device.
However, Takahashi teaches, a controller (Column 7, Lines 1-3, server 202, in response to a reception of an error report, starts the processing in the error report management unit 205) to manage access to the user data in the first storage (Column 7, Lines 1-3, server 202, in response to a reception of an error report, starts the processing in the error report management unit 205; and Column 7, Lines 30-43, the error report management unit 205 sends, to the error condition determination unit 207, the terminal identification information of the terminals in which the application A have been installed and the information of the error report management table 601 to instruct to perform the error condition determination; Examiner Note: Takahashi’s “error report management unit 205” is a part of its “server 202”: Fig. 2, error report management unit 205; and Takahashi’s “information of the error report management table” includes user data: Column 6, Lines 41-43, the application execution environment 10002 detects an exception or an error that has occurred during the execution of the application with the error detection unit 204; and Column 6, Line 47-51, the error detection unit 204 sends, to the server, the application identification information of the application that has made the error, the information (error message) of the program stack at the time of the occurrence of the error, and the terminal identification information) based at least in part on a request from an application (Column 6, Lines 47-56, the error detection unit 204 sends, to the server, the application identification information of the application that has made the error, the information (error message) of the program stack at the time of the occurrence of the error, and the terminal identification information. Hereinafter, a message including the application identification information of the application that has made the error, the information (error message) of the program stack at the time of the occurrence of the error, and the terminal identification information is referred to as an error report) on a host (Column 6, Lines3 9-40, application management unit 203 activates the application that operates on the terminal 201); and
wherein the host (Column 6, Line 40, terminal 201) is external to the storage device (Fig. 2, SEVER 202 and TERMINAL 201; and Column 5, Lines 16-17, The server 202 can be interconnected with many connectable terminals 201).
Satou and Takahashi are analogous because they are each related to application management. Satou teaches a method of application management based on detected events. ([0003], a mobile terminal is capable of identifying an application program that corresponds to an event that has occurred according to a button operation by a user and the like, and determining whether or not to start the application program corresponding to the received event based on a predetermined competitive condition between plural application programs). Takahashi teaches a method of application management based on application information and information about the host executing the application. (Abstract, A management apparatus, based on received error information of applications and information of applications installed in a terminal being managed by the management apparatus, determines a condition that an application causes the error, send information indicating that the application satisfies the condition for causing the error to an terminal satisfying the error condition out of a plurality of terminals. An application execution terminal receives from the management apparatus the information indicating that the condition that the application causes an error is satisfied). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that based on the combination, Satou’s system management apparatus would be modified to include Takahashi’s error report management unit 205 resulting in a system that is capable of managing events when a host is external to a storage device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Satou and Takahashi.
As per claim 4, Satou teaches, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program on a computational storage unit based at least in part on the second storage and the event ([0053], the system management apparatus 101 receives an event from the middleware 102 when an event notification from the middleware 102 to the application program occurs. Further, the application program corresponding to the received event is judged and a start of the application program is controlled).
As per claim 5, Satou teaches, wherein:
the computational storage unit is connected to the host ([0049], the mobile terminal 10 according to a first embodiment includes: the system management apparatus 101; a middleware 102; and an application program 180), the host storing the program ([0051], the mobile terminal 10 includes equal to or more than one application programs); and
the computational storage unit is configured to receive the program from the host as a download ([0118], as an example of the case where an application program is added to the mobile terminal 10, a new application program is installed into the mobile terminal 10, by downloading the new application program via a network).
As per claim 6, Satou teaches, wherein the computational storage unit is configured to receive the program [from the host] as the download based at least in part on the processor receiving the event (Abstract, a start-judgment unit (104) that obtains an event identifier for identifying an event from an event storage unit (103); [0127], the system management apparatus 101 updates the start-judgment condition, so that, even when an application program is added, the system management apparatus 101 can appropriately carry out start-judgment for the added application program; [0118], a new application program is installed into the mobile terminal 10, by downloading the new application program via a network).
Satou fails to specifically teach downloading the program from the host.
However, Takahashi teaches, wherein the computational storage unit is configured to receive the program [from the host] as the download (Column 2, Lines 26-31, it is assumed that an environment where many applications have been registered in an application distribution server, and users of various terminals download an application from the application distribution server to use the application is provided).
The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 8, Satou teaches, wherein the program includes state information for the program ([0064], information indicating a state of the above mobile terminal 10 is the information indicating an operational status of a predetermined application program; and [0178-0179], Information indicating a state of the mobile terminal 10 other than the operational status of the application program includes the following. Information indicating whether or not an external storage medium such as a SD card is inserted into the mobile terminal 10; information indicating an amount of space of an external storage medium such as a SD card inserted into the mobile terminal 10).
Satou fails to specifically teach, the state information including a count of number of times the program has executed.
However, Takahashi teaches, the state information including a count of number of times the program has executed (Column 14, Lines 47-53, the application management unit 203 reports the number of times of execution of each application that has been recorded. The server 202 receives the report and increments the number of times of execution in the application execution state management table 2101 being managed by the terminal information management unit 206).
The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 9, Satou teaches, wherein the program processor is configured to execute the program based at least in part on an occurrence of the event and the state information ([0061], the start-judgment unit 104 judges whether or not to start the application program which is to be notified of the event, based on whether or not a state of the mobile terminal 10, which has been obtained by the status obtainment unit 106, satisfies a start-judgment condition associated with the event identifier obtained from the event storage unit 103).
As per claim 10, Satou teaches the invention as claimed including a method, comprising:
accessing a user data from a first storage of a storage device ([0063], The condition storage unit 105 is a storage device that stores a start-judgment condition associated with a corresponding one of event identifiers of plural types. The start-judgment condition is information indicating a status of the mobile terminal 10, the status being a condition for whether or not to start the application program) based at least in part on a request received from an application executing on a host ([0061], when receiving a notification of an event occurrence from the middleware 102, the start-judgment unit 104 judges whether or not to start the application program which is to be notified of the event, based on whether or not a state of the mobile terminal 10, which has been obtained by the status obtainment unit 106, satisfies a start-judgment condition associated with the event identifier obtained from the event storage unit 103), the user data including data written or read by the application ([0066], status obtainment unit 106 obtains an operational status of each application program as the state of the mobile terminal 10; [0068], the status obtainment unit 106 obtains each operational status transmitted from each application program), the storage device further including a second storage ([0054], The system management apparatus 101 includes, as the configuration for performing such processes, an event storage unit 103), the second storage storing an association between a first identifier and a second identifier ([0055], The event storage unit 103 is a storage device in which an event corresponding to the application program transmitted from the middleware 102 is temporarily stored; [0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an event identifier, an application identifier, and event information; and [0057], The event identifier is information for identifying an event, and the application identifier is information for identifying an application program which is to be notified of the event, in other words, the application program that is to process the event), the first identifier for an event ([0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an event identifier) and the second identifier for a program ([0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an …an application identifier);
receiving the event at a processor of the storage device based at least in part on the access of the user data in the first storage ([0053], the system management apparatus 101 receives an event from the middleware 102 when an event notification from the middleware 102 to the application program occurs. Further, the application program corresponding to the received event is judged and a start of the application program is controlled) wherein the event is triggered internally to the storage device ([0061], when receiving a notification of an event occurrence from the middleware 102, the start-judgment unit 104 judges whether or not to start the application program which is to be notified of the event, based on whether or not a state of the mobile terminal 10, which has been obtained by the status obtainment unit 106, satisfies a start-judgment condition associated with the event identifier obtained from the event storage unit 103);
identifying the program by the processor based at least in part on the second storage and the event ([0056], the event storage unit 103 may hold the received event as it is, or may manage and hold by extracting necessary information. For example, an application identifier, an event identifier, and event information may be extracted from the event received from the middleware 102, and separately stored in association with each other); and
executing the program ([0070], control unit 107 is a processing unit that adaptively starts an application program based on a result of the judgment of the start-judgment unit 104).
Satou fails to specifically teach, accessing a user data from a first storage of a storage device using a controller of the storage device, the controller of the storage device internal to the storage device and accessing the user data from the first storage of the storage device; wherein the host is external to the storage device.
However, Takahashi teaches, accessing a user data from a first storage of a storage device using a controller of the storage device (Column 7, Lines 1-3, server 202, in response to a reception of an error report, starts the processing in the error report management unit 205: Examiner Note: Takahashi’s error report management unit 205 is a part of its storage device (i.e. “server 202”): Fig. 2), the controller of the storage device internal to the storage device (Column 7, Lines 30-43, the error report management unit 205 sends, to the error condition determination unit 207, the terminal identification information of the terminals in which the application A have been installed and the information of the error report management table 601 to instruct to perform the error condition determination; Examiner Note: Takahashi’s “error report management unit 205” is a part of its “server 202”: Fig. 2, error report management unit 205; and Takahashi’s “information of the error report management table” includes user data: Column 6, Lines 41-43, the application execution environment 10002 detects an exception or an error that has occurred during the execution of the application with the error detection unit 204; and Column 6, Line 47-51, the error detection unit 204 sends, to the server, the application identification information of the application that has made the error, the information (error message) of the program stack at the time of the occurrence of the error, and the terminal identification information) and accessing the user data from the first storage of the storage device (Column 7, Lines 1-3, server 202, in response to a reception of an error report, starts the processing in the error report management unit 205; and Column 7, Lines 30-43, the error report management unit 205 sends, to the error condition determination unit 207, the terminal identification information of the terminals in which the application A have been installed and the information of the error report management table 601 to instruct to perform the error condition determination);
wherein the host (Column 6, Line 40, terminal 201) is external to the storage device (Fig. 2, SEVER 202 and TERMINAL 201; and Column 5, Lines 16-17, The server 202 can be interconnected with many connectable terminals 201).
The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 11, this claim is similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 12, Takahashi teaches, further comprising downloading the program from the host (Column 2, Lines 26-31, it is assumed that an environment where many applications have been registered in an application distribution server, and users of various terminals download an application from the application distribution server to use the application is provided).
As per claim 13, this claim is similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 17, this claim is similar to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 18, This the “non-transitory storage medium claim” corresponding to claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 19, this claim is similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, this claim is similar to claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satou-Takahashi as applied to independent claims 1 and 10 and in further view of Lei et al. (US 20210097109).
As per claim 2, Satou teaches, wherein the storage device is configured to receive the association between the first identifier and the second identifier ([0056], the event storage unit 103 may hold the received event as it is, or may manage and hold by extracting necessary information. For example, an application identifier, an event identifier, and event information may be extracted from the event received from the middleware 102, and separately stored in association with each other) .
The combination of Satou-Takahashi fails to specifically teach, wherein the storage device is configured to receive the association between the first identifier and the second identifier from the host.
However, Lei teaches, wherein the storage device ([0084], an embodiment of the present invention provides a cloud server) is configured to receive the association between the first identifier and the second identifier from the host ([0084], the cloud server includes:[0085] a receiver, configured to receive a notification message sent by a terminal, where the notification message includes information about a to-be-handled application event in an application program in the terminal; and [0195], the cloud server obtains the application event information and the identifier of the terminal from the notification message).
The combination of Satou-Takahashi and Lei are analogous because they are each related to application management. Satou teaches a method of application management based on detected events. Takahashi teaches a method of application management based on application information and information about the host executing the application. Lei teaches a method of managing application events. (Abstract, method and an apparatus for intelligently handling an application event. The method includes: receiving an application handling authorization instruction entered by a user, where the application handling authorization instruction includes an identifier of an application program in a terminal; accessing the application program based on the identifier of the application program, and obtaining information about a to-be-handled application event from the application program; sending a notification message to a cloud server, where the notification message includes the application event information; receiving a feedback message sent by the cloud server, where the feedback message includes event execution information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that based on the combination, the system management apparatus taught by the combination of Satou-Takahashi would be modified to include Lei’s receiver resulting in a system that is capable of receiving and managing events from an external host. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the combination of Satou-Takahashi and Lei.
As per claim 3, Satou teaches, wherein the storage device is further configured to store the first identifier and the second identifier in the second storage ([0055], The event storage unit 103 is a storage device in which an event corresponding to the application program transmitted from the middleware 102 is temporarily stored; [0056], the event according to the present embodiment includes an event identifier, an application identifier, and event information; and [0057], The event identifier is information for identifying an event, and the application identifier is information for identifying an application program which is to be notified of the event, in other words, the application program that is to process the event).
As per claim 14, this claim is similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 2 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 15, this claim is similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satou-Takahashi as applied to independent claims 1 and 10 and in further view of Stevens et al. (US 20110271151).
As per claim 7, the combination of Satou-Takahashi fails to specifically teach, wherein the processor is configured to trigger an asynchronous event notification to the host by the processor based at least in part on the event.
However, Stevens teaches, wherein the processor is configured to trigger an asynchronous event notification to the host (Abstract, A method is provided for asynchronous notifications from a device to a host in systems without requiring hardware provision for asynchronous operations) by the processor based at least in part on the event (Claim 1, A method for asynchronous event notification by a device in a system that supports command queuing, the method comprising the steps:… detecting an asynchronous event; and providing notification of the asynchronous event by sending a response comprising the tag to the host).
The combination of Satou-Takahashi and Stevens are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both related to application management. Satou teaches a method of application management based on detected events. Takahashi teaches a method of application management based on application information and information about the host executing the application. Stevens teaches a method of sending notification of detected events to hosts. (Abstract, If an asynchronous event is detected, the device provides notification of the event by sending a response and the associated tag to the host). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Satou-Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Stevens by notifying the host of events via asynchronous event notifications. This would be beneficial because “device to host notifications may be desirable before a situation becomes critical, such as environmental conditions or recoverable errors” (Stevens, [0006]), where device to host notifications is synonymous with asynchronous event notifications.
As per claim 16, this claim is similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 7 is applicable to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
Lingarajappa (US 20190220207): Teaches a self-healing storage device that includes a processor and communicates with external hosts. ([0026], The storage controller 408 may be operably and communicatively connected to a host computer 402, which may include the storage system 410 or may be separate from the storage system. Control communication paths are provided between the host computer 402 and a processor 404. Control communication paths are provided between the processor 404 and one or more storage devices 420); and
Kulkarni et al. (US 20190013046): Teaches a self-healing storage device that includes a processor and communicates with external hosts. ([0023], A host device (not shown) may be communicatively coupled to the storage system 100 and may direct reads and writes to logical block addresses (LBAs) (not shown) that represent the logical storage capacity of the storage system 100; and [0054], FIG. 7 illustrates example operations 700 for self-healing in a storage system. The operations 700 may be performed by one or more storage controllers, managers, etc. which may be embodied in hardware or software and executing processor-executable instructions stored in a storage medium).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HEADLY whose telephone number is (571)272-1972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9-5:30pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/MELISSA A. HEADLY/
Examiner Art Unit 2197
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights