DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 8 – 10 and 12 – 15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0169541 (hereinafter Freikorn) such that the long-term memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 108) connects to the central processing unit via a disconnectable and reconnectable interface because both the high endurance storage (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 106) and the low endurance storage (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 108) are required in the system of Freikorn. However, the Examiner respectfully argues that the entire non-volatile memory module (Freikorn; Figure 1), including both the high endurance storage (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 106) and the low endurance storage (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 108), could be attached to the central data processing unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 112) through the disconnectable and reconnectable interface. Such a modification would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art as set forth by the following legal precedents; See Making Separable – In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Such a modification to Freikorn would allow for changing or replacing memory devices.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention differs from the prior art of record in that the claimed invention doesn’t separate the data between the buffer memory unit and the long-term memory unit, as Freikorn’s method. However, the Examiner respectfully argues that the relied upon prior art teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention. The claimed invention merely requires, in simple terms, receiving data; writing the data to the buffer memory unit; and copying the data from the buffer memory unit to the long term memory unit when either the data in the buffer memory unit reaches a defined data volume or when a defined time interval has elapsed. Freikorn shows that data is received by a central processing unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 112) and stored in a buffer memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 106). The Examiner has interpreted the “group of data” of Freikorn to be the “field device-related data” of the claimed invention (Freikorn; Paragraph [0023] Lines 14 – 15). The group of data is then analyzed to determine if a defined period of time has elapsed (Freikorn; Paragraph [0025] “threshold amount of time since the last write operation”). If the time interval has elapsed, the group of data is copied to the long-term memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 108, Paragraph [0025] “the elapsed time since the last write operation for that group of data exceeds the threshold, the group of data is demoted to the lower endurance storage portion 108”). Therefore, the Examiner submits that the prior art of record teaches the limitations of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 8 – 10 and 12 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0169541 (hereinafter Freikorn) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA – Note: All AAPA references are with regard to the publication of the instant application, US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0201869).
As per claims 8 and 13, Freikorn teaches a field device (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 102), comprising: a central data processing unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 112) designed to receive field device-related data, the central processing unit having a buffer memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 106, Figure 5 Item 502); and a long-term memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 1 Item 108) connected to the central data processing unit, wherein the central processing unit is configured to write all received field device-related data to the buffer memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 5 Item 502); and copy the field device-related data as a common data packet from the buffer memory unit to the long-term memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 5 Item 508, Paragraph [0025]) when either: the field device-related data in the buffer memory unit have reached a defined data volume or when a defined time interval has elapsed (Freikorn; Figure 5 Item 508, Paragraph [0025]) (See “Response to Arguments” presented above).
Freikorn does not teach wherein the buffer memory unit can be rewritten for at least 106 write cycles, and the long-term memory unit can be rewritten for a maximum of 5*105 write cycles, and the long-term memory unit is connected to the central data processing unit via a disconnectable and reconnectable interface.
However, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches a low endurance memory (EEPROM) that has a write endurance of 105 (AAPA; Paragraph [0004]) and a higher endurance memory (FRAM) having a write endurance of at least 106 (AAPA; Paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Freikorn to include the EEPROM and FRAM because both memory types are well known in the art of storage technologies.
Freikorn in combination with AAPA does not teach the long-term memory unit is connected to the central data processing unit via a disconnectable and reconnectable interface.
However, such a modification is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art as set forth by the following legal precedents (See “Response to Arguments” presented above); See Making Separable – In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Freikorn in combination with AAPA to include the disconnectable and reconnectable interface because doing so allows for changing or replacing memory devices (See “Response to Arguments” presented above).
As per claims 9 and 15, AAPA also teaches wherein the buffer memory unit is based upon a FRAM-based memory (AAPA; Paragraph [0004]), and/or wherein the long-term memory unit is based upon an EEPROM-based memory (AAPA; Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 10, Freikorn also teaches wherein the data processing unit is configured to copy an entire data volume of field device-related data as the common data packet from the buffer memory unit when the field device-related data in the buffer memory unit have reached the defined data volume or when the defined time interval has elapsed (Freikorn; Figure 5 Item 508, Paragraph [0025]).
As per claim 12, Freikorn in combination with AAPA teaches the invention as described per claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Freikorn in combination with AAPA does not teach wherein the long-term memory unit has as a memory capacity at least ten times greater than the buffer memory unit.
However, it would have been obvious to try different memory unit capacities in the system to account for data transfer sizes and system efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Freikorn in combination with AAPA to include different memory sizes because doing so is an ordinary design choice one would encounter when implementing such a system to account for system efficiency, size, and cost.
As per claim 14, Freikorn also teaches deleting the field device-related data from the buffer memory unit after the copying of the field device-related data to the long-term memory unit (Freikorn; Figure 5 Item 508, Paragraphs [0024] and [0025] – data is moved from one memory to the other, which implies it no longer exists on a first memory when it is moved to a second memory).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD B FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0669. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/RICHARD B FRANKLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2181
/IDRISS N ALROBAYE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2181