DETAILED ACTION
713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
For interviews after notice of appeal, see MPEP § 1204.03.
Interview time will be revised to a limit of 1 hour per new application or RCE (utility)/CPA (design), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. When more than one interview is needed in an application supervisors will have the flexibility to approve additional time and ensure that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 6 – 8, 16 and 21 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over prior art of record, Eilert et al., (US 2011/0067039 A1) (hereinafter “Eilert”) in view of Glass (US 6,931,455 B1) (hereinafter “Glass”).
Regarding claim 1, Eilert discloses; a hardware client comprising at least one processor coupled to a memory, the memory storing instructions thereon that, when loaded and executed, cause the at least one processor to be configured to [i.e., (see figures 1 – 3)]:
generate an object-oriented message [i.e., provides a way for the host or clients to pass messages containing commands and a list of parameters including object identifiers (IDs) that reference an objects in memory (emphasis added) (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1) Note; the message is an “object-oriented message”]; and
transmit the object-oriented message generated to an object-oriented memory device via a message bus [i.e., the message passing on the bus (page 1, para 0012), (see figure 1)] coupled to a hardware communication port of the object-oriented memory device, the hardware communication port allocated solely to the hardware client or shared by a plurality of hardware client for communicating object-oriented messages with the object-oriented memory device [i.e., each device includes a host interface and one or more inter-die communication ports 204, 206, 208, and 210 (page 2, para 0015 - 0016), (see figure 2) i.e., interface (page 3, para 0033)], the plurality of hardware clients including the hardware client [i.e., the bus interconnecting host and multiple autonomous memory devices is a shared communication medium carrying messages through each devices hardware interface (see figure 1)].
Eilert does not disclose;
wherein the object-oriented message generated is associated with an object of an object class.
However, Glass discloses;
an object-oriented message generated [i.e., in object oriented technology, a message is typically a request sent to an object (col. 3, lines 9 – 11)] is associated with an object of an object class [i.e., an object is a single instance of a class (col. 1, lines 27 – 28)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert by adapting the teaching of Glass to improve system for communications between a CORBA object request broker and a non-CORBA object request broker (See Glass, col. 1, lines 8 – 11).
Regarding claim 6; Eilert discloses; the hardware client of claim 1, wherein the object-oriented message generated is a request to call a method of ate least one method, and wherein the request includes a handle for the object and a method identifier of the method of the at least one method [i.e., provides a way for the host or clients to pass messages containing commands and a list of parameters including object identifiers (IDs) that reference an objects in memory (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1) Note; the message is an “object-oriented message”].
Regarding claim 7; Eilert discloses; the hardware client of claim 1, wherein the object-oriented message generated includes at least one argument and wherein the object-oriented memory device is configured to execute a method of at least one method employing the at least one argument included [i.e., provides a way for the host or clients to pass messages containing commands and a list of parameters including object identifiers (IDs) that reference an objects in memory (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1) Note; the message is an “object-oriented message”].
Regarding claim 8, Eilert discloses; the hardware client of claim 1, wherein the hardware client is a central processing unit (CPU), peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) device, Ethernet device, accelerator device, or digital signal processing (DSP) device [i.e., the host or clients (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1)].
Regarding claim 16, Eilert discloses; a method comprising:
generating, at a hardware client of an object-oriented memory device, an object-oriented message [i.e., provides a way for the host or clients to pass messages containing commands and a list of parameters including object identifiers (IDs) that reference an objects in memory (emphasis added) (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1) Note; the message is an “object-oriented message”]; and
transmitting the object-oriented message generated to the object-oriented memory device via a message bus [i.e., the message passing on the bus (page 1, para 0012), (see figure 1)] coupled to a hardware communication port of the object-oriented memory device [i.e., each device includes a host interface and one or more inter-die communication ports 204, 206, 208, and 210 (page 2, para 0015 - 0016), (see figure 2) i.e., interface (page 3, para 0033)], the hardware communication port shared by a plurality of hardware clients for communicating object-oriented messages with the object-oriented memory device, the plurality of hardware clients including the hardware client [i.e., the bus interconnecting host and multiple autonomous memory devices is a shared communication medium carrying messages through each devices hardware interface (see figure 1)].
Eilert does not disclose;
wherein the object-oriented message generated is associated with an object of an object class.
However, Glass discloses;
an object-oriented message generated is associated with an object of an object class [i.e., in object oriented technology, a message is typically a request sent to an object (col. 3, lines 9 – 11)] is associated with an object of an object class [i.e., an object is a single instance of a class (col. 1, lines 27 – 28)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert by adapting the teaching of Glass to improve system for communications between a CORBA object request broker and a non-CORBA object request broker (See Glass, col. 1, lines 8 – 11).
Regarding claim 21; Eilert discloses; the method of claim 16, wherein the object-oriented message generated is a request to call a method of ate least one method, and wherein the request includes a handle for the object and a method identifier of the method of the at least one method [i.e., provides a way for the host or clients to pass messages containing commands and a list of parameters including object identifiers (IDs) that reference an objects in memory (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1) Note; the message is an “object-oriented message”].
Regarding claim 22; Eilert discloses; the method of claim 16, wherein the object-oriented message generated includes at least one argument and wherein the object-oriented memory device is configured to execute a method of at least one method employing the at least one argument included [i.e., provides a way for the host or clients to pass messages containing commands and a list of parameters including object identifiers (IDs) that reference an objects in memory (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1) Note; the message is an “object-oriented message”].
Regarding claim 23, Eilert discloses; the method client of claim 16, wherein the hardware client is a central processing unit (CPU), peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) device, Ethernet device, accelerator device, or digital signal processing (DSP) device [i.e., the host or clients (page 3, para 0033), (see figure 1)].
Claim(s) 13 – 15 and 28 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilert in view of Glass as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of the prior art of record, Anderson (US 6,298,401 B1) (hereinafter “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 13, Eilert discloses; the hardware client of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Eilert and Glass do not disclose;
wherein the object is a first-in-first-out (FIFO) object.
However, Anderson discloses;
wherein the object is a first-in-first-out (FIFO) object [i.e., storage devices 110 – 112 includes drives, redundant array of independent discs (RAID) subsystems, tape drives, tape libraries, optical drives…(col. 3, lines 50 – 53)]. [i.e., each of storage devices 110 and 112 are object oriented devise which operate in a mode in which data is organized and accessed as objects 124-126 (col. 4, lines 51 – 60), (see figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert and Glass by adapting the teachings of Anderson to provide an interface exposing methods which are invoked to access objects stored in a storage media (See Anderson; col. 1, lines 20 – 30).
Regarding claim 14, Eilert discloses; the hardware client of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Eilert and Glass do not disclose;
wherein the object is a stack object.
However, Anderson discloses;
wherein the object-oriented message generated is associated with an object and wherein the object is a stack object [i.e., each of storage devices 110 and 112 are object oriented devise which operate in a mode in which data is organized and accessed as objects 124-126 (col. 4, lines 51 – 60), (see figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert and Glass by adapting the teachings of Anderson to provide an interface exposing methods which are invoked to access objects stored in a storage media (See Anderson; col. 1, lines 20 – 30).
Regarding claim 15, Eilert discloses; the hardware client of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Eilert and Glass do not disclose;
wherein the object-oriented message generated includes a message type.
However, Anderson discloses;
wherein the object-oriented message generated includes a message type [i.e., each of storage devices 110 and 112 are object oriented devise which operate in a mode in which data is organized and accessed as objects 124-126 (col. 4, lines 51 – 60), (see figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert and Glass by adapting the teachings of Anderson to provide an interface exposing methods which are invoked to access objects stored in a storage media (See Anderson; col. 1, lines 20 – 30).
Regarding claim 28, Eilert discloses; the method of claim 16 [i.e., (see claim 16 above)].
Eilert and Glass do not disclose;
wherein the object is a first-in-first-out (FIFO) object.
However, Anderson discloses;
wherein the object is a first-in-first-out (FIFO) object and wherein the at least one data member is a data element of the FIFO object [i.e., storage devices 110 – 112 includes drives, redundant array of independent discs (RAID) subsystems, tape drives, tape libraries, optical drives…(col. 3, lines 50 – 53)]. [i.e., each of storage devices 110 and 112 are object oriented devise which operate in a mode in which data is organized and accessed as objects 124-126 (col. 4, lines 51 – 60), (see figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert and Glass by adapting the teachings of Anderson to provide an interface exposing methods which are invoked to access objects stored in a storage media (See Anderson; col. 1, lines 20 – 30).
Regarding claim 29, Eilert discloses; the method of claim 16 [i.e., (see claim 16 above)].
Eilert does not disclose;
wherein the object is a stack object.
However, Anderson discloses;
wherein the object is a stack object [i.e., each of storage devices 110 and 112 are object oriented devise which operate in a mode in which data is organized and accessed as objects 124-126 (col. 4, lines 51 – 60), (see figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert and Glass by adapting the teachings of Anderson to provide an interface exposing methods which are invoked to access objects stored in a storage media (See Anderson; col. 1, lines 20 – 30).
Regarding claim 30, Eilert discloses; the method of claim 16 [i.e., (see claim 16 above)].
Eilert and Glass does not disclose;
wherein the object-oriented message generated includes a message type.
However, Anderson discloses;
wherein the object-oriented message generated includes a message type [i.e., each of storage devices 110 and 112 are object oriented devise which operate in a mode in which data is organized and accessed as objects 124-126 (col. 4, lines 51 – 60), (see figure 2)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Eilert and Glass by adapting the teachings of Anderson to provide an interface exposing methods which are invoked to access objects stored in a storage media (See Anderson; col. 1, lines 20 – 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5, 9 – 12, 17 – 20 and 24 - 27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the message bus is coupled to a hardware communications interface and wherein the hardware communications interface includes two uni-directional streaming message bus (SMBus) buses”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 2 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 3;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object a buffer object class, queue object class, stack object class, or broadcast object class”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 3 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 4;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object class includes an allocation method, de-allocation method, size method, write method, read method, push method, pop method, modify-in-place method, copy method, cyclic redundancy check (CRC) generation method, CRC check method, error-correcting code (ECC) method, randomization method, or a combination thereof”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 4 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 5;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object is a new object to-be- instantiated in at least one physical memory of the object-oriented memory device, wherein the object-oriented message generated is a request to declare the new object, and wherein the request includes an object class for the new object, the object class defining the new object”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 5 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 9;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein at least one processor is further configured to interact with a stack of an operating system and wherein the object-oriented message generated is sourced from the stack”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 9 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 10;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein at least one processor is further configured to employ data stored in at least one physical memory of the object-oriented memory device, and wherein the object-oriented memory device is configured to manage a structure of data in the at least one physical memory for the hardware process via the object”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 10 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 11;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1, wherein the object is a private storage buffer employed by the hardware process at least one processor.
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object is a private storage buffer employed by the hardware process at least one processor”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 11 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 12;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the hardware client of Claim 1,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object is an error-correcting code (ECC) object, wherein a payload is included in the object-oriented message generated, and wherein the data includes an ECC corrected version of the payload”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 12 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 17;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the message bus is coupled to a hardware communications interface and wherein the hardware communications interface includes two uni-directional streaming message bus (SMBus) buses and wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the object-oriented message over an SMBus of the two uni-directional SMBus buses”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 17 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 18;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “object class is a buffer object class, queue object class, stack object class, or broadcast object class”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 18 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 19;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object class includes an allocation method, de-allocation method, size method, write method, read method, push method, pop method, modify-in-place method, copy method, cyclic redundancy check (CRC) generation method, CRC check method, error-correcting code (ECC) method, randomization method, or a combination thereof”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 19 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 20;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object is a new object to-be- instantiated in at least one physical memory of the object-oriented memory device, wherein the object-oriented message generated is a request to declare the new object, and wherein the request includes an object class for the new object, the object class defining the new object”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 20 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 24;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein at least one processor is further configured to interact with a stack of an operating system and wherein the object-oriented message generated is sourced from the stack”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 24 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 25;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein at least one processor is further configured to employ data stored in at least one physical memory of the object-oriented memory device, and wherein the object-oriented memory device is configured to manage a structure of data in the at least one physical memory for the hardware process via the object”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 25 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 26;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object-oriented message generated is associated with an object, and wherein the object is a private storage buffer employed by the hardware process at least one processor”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 26 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 27;
the prior art of record, Eilert discloses the method of claim 16,
However, Eilert and Anderson do not disclose “wherein the object-oriented message generated is associated with an object, wherein the object is an error-correcting code (ECC) object, wherein a payload is included in the object-oriented message generated”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 12 is objected being dependent upon rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights