DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s RCE filed on 05/21/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Per 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered. However, the claims are rejected under new grounds of rejection with a new reference (Dain) applied.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a method comprising: generating a data transfer schedule for a plurality of nodes based on at least one or more computation frequencies associated with the plurality of nodes; determining, by a copy engine, based on the data transfer schedule for the plurality of nodes, a time to transfer data from a first node to a second node; and transferring, by the copy engine, at the determined time, data from the first node to the second node, wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data as a last transferred portion of the transfer of the data.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: generating a data transfer schedule for a plurality of nodes based on at least one or more computation frequencies associated with the plurality of nodes (a mental step of generating a schedule); determining, by a copy engine, based on the data transfer schedule for the plurality of nodes, a time to transfer data from a first node to a second node (a mental step of determination). These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind or manually. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “transferring, by the copy engine, at the determined time, data from the first node to the second node, wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data as a last transferred portion of the transfer of the data”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data transmitting for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of dependent claims 2-8 recite more steps of a mental process (determining, validating, generating) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper or recite insignificant additional element (transferring, using an autonomous vehicle). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 (a processor to perform the method of claim 1) with dependent claims 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-3, 5-7. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than generic hardware components with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 15 (a vehicle comprises a processor to perform the method of claim 1) with dependent claims 16-19 are rejected under the similar rationale as claims 1-3, 5-7. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than generic hardware components with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 20 (a storage medium storing instructions to perform the method of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rationale as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than generic hardware components with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala et al. (US patent 6320865) hereafter Agrawala, in view of Lee at al. (US PGPUB 2022/0070058) hereinafter Lee, and in view of Dain (US PGPUB 20130179877).
Per claim 1, Agrawala teaches determining, by a copy engine, based on the data transfer schedule for the plurality of nodes (Col 2 line 7-10, “In the device times are determined in the controller means by: (i) maintaining a schedule indicating an order in which the chunks are to be transferred; (ii) accepting transfer requests from the plurality of nodes”), the prior art and the claim both involve maintaining a schedule that dictates the order in which data (chunks) are to be transferred among nodes; the controller is a copy engine); a time to transfer data from a first node to a second node (Col 2 line 21-22, ” determining times in which the chunks are to be transferred among the plurality of nodes”), both the claim and prior art describe the process of determining specific times for transferring data (chunks) between nodes; and transferring, by the copy engine, at the determined time, data from the first node to the second node (Col 2 line 23-27; “switching each of the chunks from a portion of the incoming buffer means corresponding to one of the nodes to a portion of the outgoing buffer means corresponding to another one of the nodes at times determined by the determining step”), the claim and the prior art involve the transfer (switching) of data (chunks) between nodes at the predetermined times).
Agrawala does not explicitly teach wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data as a last transferred portion of the transfer of the data. Lee suggests the above (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine Agrawala and Lee to include a first validation data and a second validation data as the last transferred portion during a data transfer, this is a designer’s choice (the validation data could be placed in the beginning, or the end of the transmission).
Agrawala does not explicitly teach generating a data transfer schedule for a plurality of nodes based on at least one or more computation frequencies associated with the plurality of nodes. Dain suggests the above (paragraphs [0026][0030]-[0034][0065]; determine a data transfer schedule for updating firmware on a plurality of nodes, based on at least system resource utilization (CPU utilization rate) on each node, heavy CPU usage would indicate high computation frequency, low CPU usage would indicate low computation frequency, because performing computation on a node requires instruction execution on the CPU). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine Agrawala, Lee and Dain to determine a data transfer schedule for a plurality of node, based on at least system resource utilization (CPU utilization rate) on each node, this would optimize resource usage for firmware updating.
Per claim 2, Agrawala further suggest wherein determining the time is performed by the copy engine configured to manage data transfers between the plurality of nodes (col 8 line 63-65, "controller means for determining an order and time in which the chunks are to be transferred among the plurality of nodes"),the prior art and the claim describe a mechanism (copy engine in the claim and a controller means in the prior art) responsible for determining the timing and order of data transfer between nodes), and wherein transferring the data comprises causing, by the copy engine, the first node to perform the data transfer to the second node (Col 6 line 10-18, “The controller then examines the requested temporal profile and the current calendar for the outgoing link. If the request can be accommodated, the controller proceeds to modify the calendar for the link by making temporary entries in the calendar for this connection, and to adjust the temporal profile of the current request to conform to the calendar for the link. In this manner, the request continues until it reaches the receiving TR. A confirmation is sent by the receiving TR along the same path to indicate the acceptance of the connection.”), the prior art describes a process where controller (same as copy engine) manages the transfer of data by ensuring that the necessary scheduling adjustments are made to enable the first node to send data to the second node as per the determined timing).
Per claim 3, Lee further suggests “wherein the data comprises first validation data indicating a validity of a data payload and second validation data indicating validity of a transfer of the data” (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose, indicating validity of the data transfer).
Per claim 5, Lee further suggests “validating the data payload based on the first validation data; and validating the transfer of the data based on the second validation data” (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose, indicating validity of the data transfer).
Re claim 8, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 15, is an autonomous vehicle claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 16, is an autonomous claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 20, it is a product claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 10, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 12, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 17, is an autonomous vehicle claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 19, is an autonomous vehicle claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Per claim 18, Lee further discloses wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data as a last transferred portion of the transfer of the data (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose, indicating validity of the data transfer).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala, in view of Lee, in view of Dain, and further in view of Sillifant Pub No. US 11,630,598 B1 (hereafter Sillifant).
Per claim 6, Agrawala fails to disclose generating the data transfer schedule further based on at least one or more estimated computation times for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation dependencies for the plurality of nodes, or an amount of load on transfer media between the plurality of nodes. However, in analogous art with regards to claim 6 Sillifant teaches generating the data transfer schedule based on one or more estimated computation times for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation dependencies for the plurality of nodes, or an amount of load on transfer media between the plurality of nodes (Col 65 line 45, “when scheduling (904) replication operations between the storage systems, replication operations between the storage systems may also be scheduled (904) based on performance metrics.”). (Col64 line 52: “scheduling (904), based on the amount of data to be transferred from one or more source storage systems in order to fully replicate the dataset to each of the target storage systems.”). Prior art describes a method for scheduling replication operation which is parallel to data transfer scheduling and considers performance metrics or the amount of data to be transferred. These performance metrics include factors such as computation times or computation dependencies. Additionally, the scheduling based on the amount of data to be transferred aligns with the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the generating the data transfer schedule based on one or more estimated computation times for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation dependencies for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation frequencies for the plurality of nodes, or an amount of load on transfer media between the plurality of nodes as seen in Sillifant invention into Agrawala’s invention because it would lead to a more efficient and effective data transfer via scheduling process.
Re claim 13, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala, in view of Lee, in view of Dain, and further in view of Hansel Pub No. US 10328947 B1 (hereafter Hansel).
Per claim 7, Agrawala fails to disclose that the plurality of nodes are included in a real-time system of an autonomous vehicle, and wherein determining the time and transferring the data are performed by the autonomous vehicle. However, in analogous art with regards to claim 7 Hansel teaches the plurality of nodes are included in a real-time system of an autonomous vehicle, and wherein determining the time and transferring the data are performed by the autonomous vehicle (Col 1 line 8-11, “The autonomous vehicle may include a system having a variety of modules or sub-systems for enabling the vehicle to determine its surroundings and safely navigate to target destinations”)(See abstract “ a computing system receives sensor data from one or more sensors of a vehicle. The computing system determines a metric associated with the vehicle based on the received sensor data. The computing system determines, based on the metric, a length of a transmission cycle of a communication network of the vehicle. The transmission cycle comprises one or more scheduled time periods dedicated for transmitting data from respective first nodes in the communication network”) prior art teaches an autonomous vehicle’s system that transmits data between plurality of nodes in the vehicle’s network based on a metric which includes a scheduled time. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the plurality of nodes are included in a real-time system of an autonomous vehicle, and wherein determining the time and transferring the data are performed by the autonomous vehicle as seen in Hansel’s invention into Agrawala’s invention because it would improve the efficiency of the vehicle’s network in determining data transfer times and scheduling.
Per claim 14, it is a machine claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights