Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed 12/23/2025.
2. Claims 1-12 have been examined and are pending in the application.
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.
3. Claims 1, 4-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kale U.S Publication No. 2021/0325949.
As to claim 1, Kale teaches an automotive system (Fig. 1 and associated specifications) comprising:
a memory device (data storage device 115, Fig. 2 and associated specifications) in an automobile (…Data storage devices can operate less than optimally during field usage, such as when used in a vehicle (e.g., automobile or the like)…, paragraph 0010 page 1); and
a controller controlling the memory device and an electronic device in the automotive system, the controller configured to determine a time limit (…In response to a request received in the host interface to enter a renewal mode, the processing device is configured via the firmware to reprioritize the maintenance operations to a relatively higher priority than operations requested by host commands received in the host interface from the host computing device. The processing device is also configured to perform one or more of the maintenance operations…, paragraph 0016 page 1) to allocate to a background operation when a background operation trigger event is detected, and to control the memory device to process the background operation for the time limit (…in response to receiving the request, the method 200 includes powering the data storage device 115 (e.g., via the power source 125) at block 220 to cause the data storage device 115 to perform the maintenance operations. Typically, when the data storage device 115 does not receive commands from the host computing device 110 to access the storage media integrated circuit memory cells 150, the data storage device 115 is configured to enter a reduced power mode (e.g., a sleep or hibernate mode) …, paragraph 0041 page 3).
As to claim 4, Kale further teaches the background operation trigger event comprises an event that is not generated when an access request to the memory device is not generated for a set time with power being supplied to the automobile (…the powering at block 220 may include the host computing device 110 sending a signal to the data storage device 115 that prevents the data storage device 115 from entering the reduced power mode. In an embodiment, the data storage device 115 is in a full power mode and block 220 prevents the data storage device 115 from switching to the reduced power mode. In an embodiment, if the data storage device 115 was previously in the reduced power mode, block 220 can include sending a signal from the host computing device to the data storage device 115 to enter the full power mode and maintain the full power mode during the renewal mode. Thus, block 220 can prevent the power from being removed from the data storage device 115 during the renewal mode. When the data storage device 115 receives the signal to enter the full power mode and is not receiving requests, the maintenance operations are triggered…, paragraph 0042 page 3).
As to claim 5, Kale further teaches the controller controls the memory device to stop the background operation when an interrupt event is generated during the time limit (…an explicit command to exit the renewal mode may be generated by the service technician…, paragraph 0043 page 3).
As to claims 6 and 9-10, note the discussions of claims 1 and 4-5 above, respectively.
As to claims 11-12, note the discussions of claims 1 and 5 above, respectively.
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.
4. Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kale in view of Henderson U.S Patent No. 7,895,590.
As to claim 2, Kale further teaches the electronic device comprises a user interface circuit (…the host computing device 110 can be an infotainment system…, paragraph 0020 page 2)
Kale does not teach the background operation trigger event comprises an event including a power-off requested by a user through the user interface circuit while power is supplied to the automobile.
Henderson teaches a background operation trigger event comprises an event including a power-off requested by a user through a user interface circuit (…By combining a software update process with the shutdown procedures of these computer systems, in addition to selectively installing only those software updates that can be installed without any computer user interaction, intrusion into the computer user's use time is minimized. In other words, a computer user typically directs the computer system to shutdown and can then leave the computer unattended, knowing that the computer system will perform any necessary shutdown tasks and then turn itself off. …, line 62 column 2 to line 3 column 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kale reference to include the teachings of Henderson reference because by processing a background process after a shutdown event, the system could save user’s interaction time with the system, as disclosed by Henderson.
As to claim 3, Kale further teaches a power supply configured to supply power to the memory device, the electronic device, and the controller, wherein the controller controls the power supply to supply the power to the memory device during the time limit (…the power source 125 can be a battery that is electrically connected to the host computing device 110 and to the data storage device 115…, paragraph 0024 page 2).
As to claims 7-8, note the discussions of claims 2-3 above, respectively.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kale reference does not teach determining a time limit (Remarks, pages 6-7). In response, as disclosed in the claim rejections above, Kale teaches in response to a request received in the host interface to enter a renewal mode, the processing device is configured to reprioritize the maintenance operations to a relatively higher priority than operations requested by host commands, and the processing device is also configured to perform one or more of the maintenance operations (paragraph 0016 page 1). It is clear a time period is being allocated for the system to execute the maintenance operations because they are now having higher priority than other operations, as disclosed by Kale. The reference meets the limitation as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Andy Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-3762. A voice mail service is also available for this number. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or fax to:
AFTER-FINAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
OFFICAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
NON OFFICAL faxes should not be signed, please send to (571) 273 – 3762
/Andy Ho/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights