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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7, 11, 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 16 recite that the set of storage units is selected “further based on” one of several listed considerations. No previous basis for selecting the set of storage units is recited. The word “further” should be deleted, or the additional selection basis should be expressly identified.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses.” The phrase should be amended to recite “in response to one of the plurality of system file statuses.”
Claim 11 improperly places a comma between “operational instructions” and the restrictive clause beginning with “that.” The limitation should recite, for example, “a memory that stores operational instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processing system to.”
Claim 15 recites that the operational instructions “cause the processing system to” followed by the gerunds “generating,” “receiving,” “selecting,” and “transmitting.” These terms should be amended to the parallel infinitive forms “generate,” “receive,” “select,” and “transmit.”
Claim 18 recites that the operational instructions cause the processing system to “generate a request … and receiving the second portion.” For grammatical consistency, “receiving” should be amended to “receive.”
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,907,824. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in question are nearly identical save for the omission of the limitation: “generating a request for a plurality of system registry files.”
Instant Application US20240176983
U.S. Patent No. 11,907,824
Claim 1: A method for execution by a processing system that includes a processor, the method comprises: receiving a plurality of system registry files via a network; generating a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files; and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
Claim 1: A method for execution by a processing system that includes a processor, the method comprises: generating a request for a plurality of system registry files; receiving the plurality of system registry files via a network; generating a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files; and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 3: wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 3: wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the verification indicator is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files, and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data, and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the verification indicator is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files, and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data, and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files; receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units; selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses; and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files; receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units; selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses; and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, further comprising: selecting the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level, a processing system performance level, a network performance level, or storage network configuration information.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, further comprising: selecting the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level, a processing system performance level, a network performance level, or storage network configuration information.
Claim 7: The method of claim 5, wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available.
Claim 7: The method of claim 5, wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available.
Claim 8: The method of claim 5, further comprising: selecting a second storage unit from the set of storage units, wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit, and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files; and generating a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network.
Claim 8: The method of claim 5, further comprising: selecting a second storage unit from the set of storage units, wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit, and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files; and generating a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a system file status update for transmission via the network to a plurality of storage units when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful, wherein the system file status update indicates that the plurality of system registry files are available.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a system file status update for transmission via the network to a plurality of storage units when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful, wherein the system file status update indicates that the plurality of system registry files are available.
Claim 11: A processing system of a dispersed storage and task (DST) execution unit comprises: at least one processor; a memory that stores operational instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause the processing system to: receive a plurality of system registry files via a network; generate a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files; and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
Claim 11: A processing system of a dispersed storage and task (DST) execution unit comprises: at least one processor; a memory that stores operational instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause the processing system to: receive a plurality of system registry files via a network; generate a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files; and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
Claim 12: The processing system of claim 11, wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 12: The processing system of claim 11, wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 13: wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 13: wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
Claim 14: wherein the verification indicator is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files, and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data, and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values.
Claim 14: wherein the verification indicator is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files, and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data, and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values.
Claim 15: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files; receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units; selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses; and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit.
Claim 15: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files; receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units; selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses; and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit.
Claim 16: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: select the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level, a processing system performance level, a network performance level, or storage network configuration information.
Claim 16: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: select the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level, a processing system performance level, a network performance level, or storage network configuration information.
Claim 17: wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available
Claim 17: wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available
Claim 18: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: select a second storage unit from the set of storage units, wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit, and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files; and generate a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network.
Claim 18: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: select a second storage unit from the set of storage units, wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit, and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files; and generate a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network.
Claim 19: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: generate a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful.
Claim 19: wherein the operational instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the processing system to: generate a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful.
Claim 20: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a processing system of a storage network that includes a processor and a memory, causes the processing system to: generate a request for a plurality of system registry files; receive the plurality of system registry files via a network; generate integrity check data based on the plurality of system registry files and system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files, wherein the integrity check data includes a verification indicator; and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
Claim 20: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a processing system of a storage network that includes a processor and a memory, causes the processing system to: generate a request for a plurality of system registry files; receive the plurality of system registry files via a network; generate integrity check data based on the plurality of system registry files and system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files, wherein the integrity check data includes a verification indicator; and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4–8 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claims 4 and 14 recite that verification is successful when the calculated integrity-check value “compares favorably” to a corresponding integrity value. Although paragraph [0058] states that “compares favorably” means that a comparison provides a “desired relationship,” neither the claims nor the Specification identifies the desired relationship applicable to the recited integrity values. It is therefore unclear whether the values must be equal, fall within a particular tolerance or range, satisfy a threshold, possess a greater-than or less-than relationship, or satisfy some other comparison criterion.
This ambiguity is particularly material because claims 4 and 14 depend on claims 2 and 12, respectively, rather than from claims 3 and 13. Consequently, the integrity values are not necessarily cryptographic hash values for which exact equality might reasonably be understood as the intended relationship. The claims also broadly recite performing an unspecified “function” on the system registry files.
Claims 5 and 15 each recite “transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit.” However, neither independent claim 1 nor independent claim 11 previously introduced a request for the plurality of system registry files. Although claims 5 and 15 introduce “a system files status request,” it is unclear whether the subsequently recited “the request for the plurality of system registry files” refers to that system files status request or to a separate, previously unrecited request for transmission of the system registry files.
The distinction is material because the Specification distinguishes between a “system files status request,” used to determine the availability of the system registry files, and a “system files transmission request,” sent to a selected storage unit to initiate transmission of the system registry files. See paragraphs [0041]–[0043]. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether claims 5 and 15 require transmission of the previously recited status request or transmission of a separate request seeking the registry files. The metes and bounds of claims 5 and 15 are therefore unclear.
Claims 6–8 depend on claim 5 and incorporate its indefiniteness. Claims 16–18 depend on claim 15 and likewise incorporate its indefiniteness.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories?
Yes. The claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “generating a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files;” is directed to a mental process of evaluation merely implemented on a computer according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitations: “receiving a plurality of system registry files via a network;” and “and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful” are directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “receiving a plurality of system registry files via a network;” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving and transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2105(d). Further, the limitation: “and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Storing and retrieving information in memory” under MPEP 2105(d).
Regarding claim 2:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 4:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “wherein the verification indicator is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files” is directed to a mathematical process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Further, the limitations: “and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data, and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values” is directed to a mental process of evaluation under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 5:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses;” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitations: “generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files; receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units;” and “and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit” under mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitations: “generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files; receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units;” and “and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving and transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2105(d).
Regarding claim 6:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “selecting the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level, a processing system performance level, a network performance level, or storage network configuration information” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 7:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 8:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “selecting a second storage unit from the set of storage units, wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit, and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files;” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “and generating a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network” is directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “and generating a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving and transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2105(d).
Regarding claim 9:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “generating a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful” is directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “generating a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving and transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2105(d).
Regarding claim 10:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “generating a system file status update for transmission via the network to a plurality of storage units when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful,” is directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the limitation: “wherein the system file status update indicates that the plurality of system registry files are available” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “generating a system file status update for transmission via the network to a plurality of storage units when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful,” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving and transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2105(d).
Further, the limitation: “wherein the system file status update indicates that the plurality of system registry files are available” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 11:
Step 1: is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories?
Yes. The claim is directed to a machine.
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The claim is directed to “generate a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files;” is directed to a mental process of evaluation merely implemented on a computer according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitations: “receive a plurality of system registry files via a network;” and “and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful” are directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, “at least one processor; a memory that stores operational instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause the processing system to:” is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “receive a plurality of system registry files via a network;” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving and transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2105(d).
Further, the limitation: “and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful”is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Storing and retrieving information in memory” under MPEP 2105(d).
Further, the limitation “at least one processor; a memory that stores operational instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause the processing system to” is directed to generic computing components that do not supply an inventive concept under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 11.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Patent 2008/0064501 (Patel).
Regarding claim 1:
Patel teaches:
1. A method for execution by a processing system that includes a processor, the method comprises:
(Patel, ¶0053)
“Slot management system 101 includes transaction server 117, for example a XYZ iView transaction server, which communicates with XYZ iView apparatuses, which are incorporated with gaming machines connected to the network, where iView apparatuses include a secondary display connected to a motherboard including a microprocessor or controller, memory, and selected communication, player, and/or gaming software, such as a conventional video wagering game or multi-media presentations, which may be enabled by a player, the gaming machine, or the slot management system [i.e. A method for execution by a processing system that includes a processor, the method comprises:].”
2. receiving a plurality of system registry files via a network;
(Patel, ¶0056)
“Download and configuration server system 201 enables the transmission of software files, packages or modules to one or more clients, such as gaming machines or tables, via, for example, a casino network using the Gaming Standard Association's (GSA's) Game to System (G2S) message protocols [i.e. receiving a plurality of system registry files via a network;].”
(Patel, ¶0579)
“Modules are defined as a collection of one or more files.”
(Patel, ¶0582)
“A 64-character description of the module type Identifies the type of module it is. The types include OS, game, firmware, data, file, configuration, and the like.”
3. generating a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files;
(Patel, ¶0601)
“(8) update packages status with either package validated or package not validated and send to SMS; [i.e. generating a verification indicator].”
(Patel, ¶0074)
“Software packages added to the software library may be verified from the package data using an MD5 or SHA-1 or some other verification tool. The verification string may be added to a package header and used to re-verify the package after it is downloaded to the EGM 213 [i.e. based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files;].”
4. and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
(Patel, ¶0759)
“This is then stored in the package header and is used by the package receiver and installed on the EGM to validate the contents of the package. The package will not be installed on the EGM unless it passes this SHA-1 validation [i.e. and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.].”
Regarding claim 2 and analogous claim 12:
Patel teaches:
1. wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
(Patel, ¶0615)
“In another embodiment, a File Validation Methodology uses Validation Manifest Files (VMFs). Each VMF contains a header portion describing the contents of the VMF. The VMD header is then followed by an entry for each file the VMF refers to. The file entry consists of the fully-qualified file name, a process flag, and a SHA-1 hash value computed over the entire contents of the file [i.e. wherein the system registry integrity data includes a plurality of file identifiers corresponding to the plurality of system registry files and a plurality of integrity values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files].”
Regarding claim 3 and analogous claim 13:
Patel teaches:
1. wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files.
(Patel, ¶0612)
“Authentication of a file uses a digital signature (or some comparable identifier) created from a public and private key pair. Verification of a file uses a SHA-1 hash value (or some comparable identifier) created over the entire contents of a file [i.e. wherein the plurality of integrity values are cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of system registry files].”
Regarding claim 4 and analogous claim 14:
Patel teaches:
1. wherein the verification indicator is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files,
(Patel, ¶0622)
“The VMFs are created by a utility which uses the binary reproducible image of the partition where the files are located [i.e. wherein the verification indicator is generated]. It extracts all of the file names contained in the binary image, opens each file and calculates a SHA-1 hash value for the contents of the file [i.e. is generated by calculating at least one integrity check value by performing a function on the plurality of system registry files,].”
2. and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data,
(Patel, ¶0616)
“This validation driver reads the VMFs, computes the cumulative SHA-1 hash value for them, and validates that the SHA-1 hash value matches the one computed by the BIOS code [i.e. and comparing the at least one integrity check value to a corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values of the system registry integrity data].”
3. and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values.
(Patel, ¶0639)
“If the SHA-1 hash values match, the file open is allowed to continue and processing proceeds as normal. If the file was not found in the validation table or the SHA-1 hash values do not match, all processing on the gaming machine is halted and an appropriate message is displayed on the gaming machine's video screen [i.e. and wherein the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful when the at least one integrity check value compares favorably to the corresponding at least one of the plurality of integrity values].”
Regarding claim 9 and analogous claim 19:
Patel teaches:
1. generating a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful.
(Patel, ¶0600-¶0601)
“The Dlreceiver module then performs the following tasks: (1) updates the status of the SMS request; (2) sends request received status back to the SMS; (3) creates the cURL command; (4) sends request in process status back to SMS; (5) uses system call to execute cURL support and waits for completion; (6) when return received from cURL, send either error or package received status to SMS; [i.e. generating a verification error notification for transmission via the network when the verification indicator indicates that verification was unsuccessful].”
Regarding claim 10:
Patel teaches:
1. generating a system file status update for transmission via the network to a plurality of storage units when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful,
(Patel, ¶0601)
“(7) if package received successfully, validate that the package's content SHA-1 value matches the SHA-1 value in the package header; (8) update packages status with either package validated or package not validated and send to SMS; [i.e. generating a system file status update for transmission via the network to a plurality of storage units when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful,]”
2. wherein the system file status update indicates that the plurality of system registry files are available.
(Patel, ¶0072)
“Server system 201 may supply the location of the SDDP when instructing EGM 213 to add a package. Server system 201 may verify that all required hardware and software for a package to be sent to an EGM exists before instructing EGM 213 to retrieve the package [i.e. wherein the system file status update indicates that the plurality of system registry files are available.].”
Regarding claim 11 and analogous claim 20:
Patel teaches:
1. A processing system of a dispersed storage and task (DST) execution unit comprises: at least one processor; a memory that stores operational instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause the processing system to:
(Patel, ¶0053)
“Slot management system 101 includes transaction server 117, for example a XYZ iView transaction server, which communicates with XYZ iView apparatuses, which are incorporated with gaming machines connected to the network, where iView apparatuses include a secondary display connected to a motherboard including a microprocessor or controller, memory, and selected communication, player, and/or gaming software, such as a conventional video wagering game or multi-media presentations, which may be enabled by a player, the gaming machine, or the slot management system [i.e. A processing system of a dispersed storage and task (DST) execution unit comprises: at least one processor a memory that stores operational instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause the processing system to:].
2. receive a plurality of system registry files via a network;
(Patel, ¶0056)
“Download and configuration server system 201 enables the transmission of software files, packages or modules to one or more clients, such as gaming machines or tables, via, for example, a casino network using the Gaming Standard Association's (GSA's) Game to System (G2S) message protocols [i.e. receiving a plurality of system registry files via a network;].”
(Patel, ¶0579)
“Modules are defined as a collection of one or more files.”
(Patel, ¶0582)
“A 64-character description of the module type Identifies the type of module it is. The types include OS, game, firmware, data, file, configuration, and the like.”
3. generate a verification indicator based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files;
(Patel, ¶0601)
“(8) update packages status with either package validated or package not validated and send to SMS; [i.e. generating a verification indicator].”
(Patel, ¶0074)
“Software packages added to the software library may be verified from the package data using an MD5 or SHA-1 or some other verification tool. The verification string may be added to a package header and used to re-verify the package after it is downloaded to the EGM 213 [i.e. based on an integrity check of the plurality of system registry files versus system registry integrity data corresponding to the plurality of system registry files;].”
4. and store the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.
(Patel, ¶0759)
“This is then stored in the package header and is used by the package receiver and installed on the EGM to validate the contents of the package. The package will not be installed on the EGM unless it passes this SHA-1 validation [i.e. and storing the system registry files in memory when the verification indicator indicates that verification was successful.].”
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 5-8, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Patent 2008/0064501 (Patel) in view of US Pre-Grant Patent 2002/0133491 (Sim et al; Sim).
Regarding claim 5 and analogous claim 15:
Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Sim teaches:
1. generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files;
(Sim, ¶0161)
“A "search" command may include three packets, for example: "search", "search_ack", and "search_reply". A DS servicing a "prepare" command issues a "search" packet to initiate a multicast search among its neighbors for the non-resident portions of the file [i.e. generating a system files status request for transmission to a set of storage units via the network, wherein the system files status request indicates the plurality of system registry files;].”
2. receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units;
(Sim, ¶0161)
“Each neighbor may issue a "search_ack" packet indicating that it has received the "search" request [i.e. receiving a plurality of system file statuses via the network from at least one of the set of storage units].”
3. selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses;
(Sim, ¶0161)
“A DS in the initiating DS cluster receives "search_reply" packets and may select appropriate remote DS nodes based on the information in the "search_reply" packets to download the missing portions of the file [i.e. selecting a first storage unit from the set of storage units based on the plurality of system file statuses;].”
4. and transmitting the request for the plurality of system registry files to the first storage unit.
(Sim, ¶0161)
“A DS in the initiating DS cluster may issue "get" command, for example, to one or more nodes (i.e., selected SCDN nodes) to download the missing content.”
One of ordinary skill, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Patel with Sim to select storage units according to their reported file availability and network performance, retrieve complementary files from multiple storage units, and notify neighboring storage units after verified files became available, because these techniques would predictably improve the efficiency and reliability of Patel’s distributed-file retrieval; specifically, Sim explains that its source-selection procedure operates “so as to minimize the latency and bandwidth demands on other distribution server nodes (Sim, ¶0241).”
Regarding claim 6 and analogous claim 16:
Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Sim teaches:
1. selecting the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level, a processing system performance level, a network performance level, or storage network configuration information.
(Sim, ¶0159)
“When downloading a file, a DS may decide on the size of the file to pull based on: (1) its storage availability; (2) location of the station in the network map; (3) the content's popularity; (4) the truncate-able or non-truncate-able characteristic of the file; and, (5) the bandwidth allowance [i.e. selecting the set of storage units from a plurality of storage units further based on at least one of: proximity to the processing system, an expected network loading level…].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Patel with Sim. The motivation is the same as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7 and analogous claim 17:
Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Sim teaches:
1. wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available.
(Sim, ¶0240)
“When the requesting DS cluster receives reply packets from any nodes in the SCDN indicating that they contain part or all of the requested file [i.e. wherein the first storage unit is selected from the set of storage units in response to a one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit], the DSs in the cluster download the missing content from those nodes that are least congested and stores it locally in the distribution server's shared storage devices [i.e. indicating that the plurality of system registry files are available].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Patel with Sim. The motivation is the same as claim 5.
Regarding claim 8 and analogous claim 18:
Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Sim teaches:
1. selecting a second storage unit from the set of storage units,
(Sim, ¶0161)
“A DS in the initiating DS cluster may issue "get" command, for example, to one or more nodes (i.e., selected SCDN nodes) to download the missing content [i.e. selecting a second storage unit from the set of storage units,].”
2. wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit
(Sim, ¶0240)
“A node replies directly to the requesting DS if the requested part of the file exists in that node. Nodes not having any portion of the requested file do not reply. A reply also includes the performance status of the node that sends the reply [i.e. wherein a first one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the first storage unit] and an indicator of the portions of the file available [i.e. and a second one of the plurality of system file statuses corresponding to the second storage unit].”
3. indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit,
(Sim, ¶0161)
“The "search_reply" packet may include the block index array that indicates the portion of the searched file residing in the replied node [i.e. indicate that a first portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the first storage unit], the network condition of the node [i.e. and a second portion of the plurality of system registry files are available from the second storage unit,], and the load of the node DS cluster.”
4. and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files;
(Sim, ¶0239)
“At the request of the VFCS 470, the non-resident portions of the file are pulled from different distribution servers in the SCDN concurrently in non-continuous fashion and stored locally as the end user consume the data in the file [i.e. and wherein the first portion and the second portion collectively include all of the system registry files of the plurality of system registry files;].”
5. and generating a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit
(Sim, ¶0161)
“A DS in the initiating DS cluster receives "search_reply" packets and may select appropriate remote DS nodes based on the information in the "search_reply" packets to download the missing portions of the file [i.e. and generating a request for the second portion of the plurality of system registry files for transmission via the network to the second storage unit].”
6. and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network.
(Sim, ¶0159)
“The "get_chunk" packet may be used to transfer file data, or volume or directory information, [i.e. and receiving the second portion of the plurality of system registry files in response via the network] and the "get_ack" packet may be used to acknowledge the end of the "get" sequence and report status.”
One of ordinary skill, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Patel with Sim. The motivation is the same as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL JUSTIN BREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-6320. 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, Michael J Huntley can be reached on 303-297-4307. 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.
/P.J.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/SEHWAN KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights