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 .
Detail Action
In the amendment filed on 01/08/2026, claims 1-17 are pending, claims 1-14 are amended, and claim 15-17 are added.
That is a Final Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Cohen fails to teach “the new system functions are associated with a same hardware application process of an application.”
Examiner disagrees.
Cohen teaches this limitation because Cohen teaches the operating system generally handles computer hardware and interface tasks, such as creating and managing a file structure, interacting with input and output devices, etc. p0068; The operating systems further generally consist of two types of executable units, a kernel and other operating system components, which in some discussion are referred to as programs. The operating system kernel generally includes central logic routines that control the primary information processing hardware and resources, including control of memory allocation. In particular, the kernel controls the execution of other programs, whether those programs are operating system components or user application components. The kernel, in specific systems, can also be understood as a set of system calls. System calls are logic functions in a kernel that perform such operations as initiating a process, allocating memory, etc. A typical kernel can have anywhere from a few, to a few dozen, to a few hundred system calls. see p0069; In a typical kernel, a system call reference (such as exec(program_name)) is translated by the kernel to an address of a particular logic instruction sequence usually within the kernel using a look-up table, generally referred to as a system call table or system call index. It is generally known to augment an operating system kernel by providing additional system call logic usually at the end of the kernel and adding entries to the system call table. It is also generally known to modify an operating system kernel by providing additional system call logic in the kernel and replacing the address pointed to by a particular system call identifier in the system call table. See p0070; Many information systems provide for execution of logic instructions in multiple processes. A process can generally be understood as a related set of logic execution resources (such as memory locations, register values, I/O connections, etc.) that is associated with a particular sequence of executing logic instructions and that are executing with a set of execution or process parameters (such as allowed memory actions, allowed interrupt actions, etc.) Processes are generally initiated and managed by the kernel using one or more system calls. A logic instruction string that wants to create a new process will generally do so using a particular system call, such as fork( ). When such a system call is executed, the operating system kernel will perform a number of actions, such as: determine the resources that will be available to the process, create a process_id, for the process, enter the process_id in the process table. The kernel will generally also periodically give control of the information system's instruction execution resources to the process. Thus, another way to understand the operation of an exec( ) system call is a call that when executed in a process replaces whatever logic instruction string is running in that process with a new logic instruction string specified by the exec( ) system call. (To run a program in a new process, a logic instruction string generally will execute fork( ), followed in the new process by exec( ).) see p0072;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237.
18/004,956
Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237;
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising:
a data processor configured to:
Cohen p0125 Fig. 4
control system call execution for an application based on system call invocation from the application, wherein
Cohen Fig. 4; p0055, p0124-p131;
Cohen teaches when a user program in a user space invoked a system call in the kernel space, the system call table for that system call indicates a Kernel Deception Module; p0125.
The system call invocation is associated with a specific system call number, and
Cohen p0125; The kernel maintains a system call table indexed by system call number that contains function pointers to the actual kernel function that performs the requested action. For example, the read system call, which reads information from a file descriptor, is system call number 3;
The specific system call number is associated with a plurality of system calls;
Cohen teaches he kernel maintains a system call table indexed by system call number that contains function pointers to the actual kernel function that performs the requested action. See Cohen p0125.
Select, based on the control of the system call execution, a system call among the plurality of system calls wherein the plurality of system calls is associated with a same hardware application process of the application; and
Cohen teaches the operating system generally handles computer hardware and interface tasks, such as creating and managing a file structure, interacting with input and output devices, etc. p0068; And operating systems further generally consist of two types of executable units, a kernel and other operating system components, which in some discussion are referred to as programs. The operating system kernel generally includes central logic routines that control the primary information processing hardware and resources, including control of memory allocation. In particular, the kernel controls the execution of other programs, whether those programs are operating system components or user application components. The kernel, in specific systems, can also be understood as a set of system calls. System calls are logic functions in a kernel that perform such operations as initiating a process, allocating memory, etc. A typical kernel can have anywhere from a few, to a few dozen, to a few hundred system calls. see p0069; In a typical kernel, a system call reference (such as exec(program_name)) is translated by the kernel to an address of a particular logic instruction sequence usually within the kernel using a look-up table, generally referred to as a system call table or system call index. It is generally known to augment an operating system kernel by providing additional system call logic usually at the end of the kernel and adding entries to the system call table. It is also generally known to modify an operating system kernel by providing additional system call logic in the kernel and replacing the address pointed to by a particular system call identifier in the system call table. See p0070; Many information systems provide for execution of logic instructions in multiple processes. A process can generally be understood as a related set of logic execution resources (such as memory locations, register values, I/O connections, etc.) that is associated with a particular sequence of executing logic instructions and that are executing with a set of execution or process parameters (such as allowed memory actions, allowed interrupt actions, etc.) Processes are generally initiated and managed by the kernel using one or more system calls. A logic instruction string that wants to create a new process will generally do so using a particular system call, such as fork( ). When such a system call is executed, the operating system kernel will perform a number of actions, such as: determine the resources that will be available to the process, create a process_id, for the process, enter the process_id in the process table. The kernel will generally also periodically give control of the information system's instruction execution resources to the process. Thus, another way to understand the operation of an exec( ) system call is a call that when executed in a process replaces whatever logic instruction string is running in that process with a new logic instruction string specified by the exec( ) system call. (To run a program in a new process, a logic instruction string generally will execute fork( ), followed in the new process by exec( ).) see p0072;
Execute the same hardware application process of the application based on the selected system call.
Cohen p 0068-p0075; p0125 Fig. 4
As per claims 13 and 14, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
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 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Choo US 2003/0149895.
18/004,956
Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Choo US 2003/0149895
Claim 12
The information processing device according claim 1, wherein
The specific system number is associated with a plurality vector tables,
Each system call of the plurality of system calls is associated with a respective vector table of the plurality vector tables, and
Each vector table of the plurality of vector tables stores a unique instruction address for a corresponding system call of the plurality of system calls.
Cohen p0035, p0055; p0068-p0102;
Choo teaches function call associated with a plurality of call table;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Choo’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to define communication path with event based condition.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Banerjee US Publication 2017/0097886.
18/004,956
Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Banerjee US Publication 2017/0097886
Claim 2
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of system calls includes:
a system call A that executes safety-oriented data processing; and
a system call B that executes throughput-oriented data.
Cohen teaches safety-oriented data processing determining permission of application and requester; p0102-p0104;
Banerjee teaches flushing cache improve storage operation. (Banerjee p0005, p0012-p0013, p0027-p0028)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Banerjee’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to improve system operation.
Claim 3
The information processing device according to claim 2,
Wherein, in a case where the system call A is selected as the system call, the data processor is further configured to:
Determine whether a permission to execute the system call A is enable; and
Execute a cache memory flush process before and after the execution of the same hard application process.
Cohen teaches safety-oriented data processing determining permission of application and requester; p0102-p0104;
Banerjee teaches can ordering flush call before or after a system call. (see Banerjee p0028, Fig 28);
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Banerjee’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to improve the specific function call.
Claim 4
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
The data processor is further configured to select the system call among the plurality of system calls based on reliability of the application,
The plurality of system calls includes:
A system call A that executes a safety-oriented data process; and
A system call B that executes a throughput-oriented data process, and
The system call A is selected as the system call in a case where the reliability o the application lower than a specific level.
Cohen teaches safety-oriented data processing determining permission of application and requester; p0102-p0104;
Banerjee teaches the storage controller performs cache flushing based on the cache storing an amount of data that exceeds one or more thresholds. (it is noted that amount data is a determining factor for reliability; Applicant Specification talked having high data load and low computing power the reliability is low see paragraph 0199) The comparing between the amount of data stored by the cache and the thresholds may be performed when data is written to the cache, or at some other time based on an event. For example, receiving data in the cache, a storage controller shutdown or startup, a timer event, detecting an idle or low processing period, or other event may trigger cache flushing. (see Banerjee p0042; and Fig 2 p0028)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Banerjee’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure application does not adversely affect the system operation.
Claim 10
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to select the system call based on a cumulative number of times of execution of the application.
Banerjee teaches the storage controller performs cache flushing based on the cache storing an amount of data that exceeds one or more thresholds. The comparing between the amount of data stored by the cache and the thresholds may be performed when data is written to the cache, or at some other time based on an event. For example, receiving data in the cache, a storage controller shutdown or startup, a timer event, detecting an idle or low processing period, or other event may trigger cache flushing. (see Banerjee p0042; and Fig 2 p0028)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Banerjee’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure application does not adversely affect the system operation.
Claim 15
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein, in a case where the system call B is selected as the system call, the data processor is further configured to prohibit at least one of:
determination of whether a permission to execute the system call B is enabled; or execution of a cache memory flush process before and after the execution of the same hardware application process.
Banerjee teaches the storage controller performs cache flushing based on the cache storing an amount of data that exceeds one or more thresholds. The comparing between the amount of data stored by the cache and the thresholds may be performed when data is written to the cache, or at some other time based on an event. For example, receiving data in the cache, a storage controller shutdown or startup, a timer event, detecting an idle or low processing period, or other event may trigger cache flushing. (see Banerjee p0042; and Fig 2 p0028)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Banerjee’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure application does not adversely affect the system operation.
Claim 16
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to select the system call among the plurality of system calls based on reliability of the application, the plurality of system calls includes:
a system call A that executes a safety-oriented data process; and a system call B that executes a throughput-oriented data process, and the system call B is selected as the system call, in a case where the reliability of the application is higher than a specific level.
Banerjee teaches the storage controller performs cache flushing based on the cache storing an amount of data that exceeds one or more thresholds. The comparing between the amount of data stored by the cache and the thresholds may be performed when data is written to the cache, or at some other time based on an event. For example, receiving data in the cache, a storage controller shutdown or startup, a timer event, detecting an idle or low processing period, or other event may trigger cache flushing. (see Banerjee p0042; and Fig 2 p0028)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Banerjee’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure application does not adversely affect the system operation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Naka US 2005/0050363.
18/004,956
Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Naka US 2005/0050363
Claim 5
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to select the system call based on at least one of:
reliability of data used at a time of the system call execution, or confidentiality of the data.
Naka p0010-p0011; p0080-0091; p0210; Fig. 3
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Naka’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure security of the data.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Sugaya US 9,348,999.
18/004,956
Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Sugaya US 9,348,999
Claim 7
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to:
Control communication with a communication partner at a time of the system call execution; and
Select the system call based on reliability of the communication partner.
Sugaya c7:65-c10:55; specifically, Sugaya determine reliability based on destination IP. Sugaya c9:20-30;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Sugaya’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure reliability of the execution of the program.
Claim 9
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data processor is further configured to select the system call based on a cumulative number of times of execution of the applicaton.
Sugaya c7:65-c10:55;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Sugaya’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure reliability of the execution of the program.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Tanaka US 2016/0026409.
18/004,956
Cohen US Publication 2005/0076237 in view of Tanaka US 2016/0026409
Claim 8
The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the data processor is further configured to select the system call based on reliability of an access path used at a time of the system call exection.
Tanaka Fig. 3 p0047-p0049;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Tanaka’s teaching with method of Cohen in order to ensure robust communication path.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194