Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s submission for RCE filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered. Applicant has amended claim 5. Currently claim 5-8 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
109
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
95
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reply, examiner would like to point out that Pant clearly disclose the content notified (for notifying one or more firmware not be normal) to the user by the controller differs among the first case, the second case and the third case (See, Paragraph 0068, “If the boot service fails to locate one or more of the boot firmware components within the computer readable storage device, and thus, determines such component(s) are missing (YES branch of step 240), the boot service displays a warning message regarding the missing component(s) and requests user consent to retrieve and download the missing component(s) from a remotely located system (in step 250)”) and Paragraph 0071, “If the boot service fails to locate one or more of the boot firmware components within the computer readable storage device, and thus, determines such component(s) are missing (YES branch of step 340), the boot service informs the OS-based agent that the boot firmware components are missing (in step 342) and the bootloader is executed to boot the operating system (in step 344)”) and Paragraph 0073, “The OS-based agent operating in the OS environment displays a warning message regarding the missing component(s) and requests user consent to retrieve and download the missing component(s) from a remotely located system (in step 350)”. Please note that as established by Paragraphs 0068, 0071 and 0073, the warning to the user the specific to the missing component and not just a generic error message without any indication of what is missing and what needs to be downloaded. It does not appear from the context of Pant reference that warning message is requesting user for a consent without identifying what is missing or what needs to be downloaded. As a result, arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
396
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
248
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reply to applicant’s argument that “in a second case in which a first component is missing and a second component is not missing, displaying a warning message regarding the missing component, but in a fist case in which the first component and the second component are missing, displaying a warning message regarding only the missing first component and not displaying a warning message regarding the missing second component. In that case the content of the warning message displayed is identical to that in the second case”, examiner is unable to find any recitation of Pant in which if multiple components are missing the error is only displayed regarding one component as alleged by the applicant. Pant clearly discloses displaying warning regarding all missing component (See, Paragraph 0068, “If the boot service fails to locate one or more of the boot firmware components within the computer readable storage device, and thus, determines such component(s) are missing (YES branch of step 240), the boot service displays a warning message regarding the missing component(s) and requests user consent to retrieve and download the missing component(s) from a remotely located system (in step 250)”). As a result, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argued:
PNG
media_image6.png
323
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
108
646
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As pointed out above, Pant clearly discloses detecting all of the missing components and displaying warning regarding all missing components and requesting component specific consent prior to downloading one or more missing components (See, Paragraph 0068, “If the boot service fails to locate one or more of the boot firmware components within the computer readable storage device, and thus, determines such component(s) are missing (YES branch of step 240), the boot service displays a warning message regarding the missing component(s) and requests user consent to retrieve and download the missing component(s) from a remotely located system (in step 250)”) and Paragraph 0071, “If the boot service fails to locate one or more of the boot firmware components within the computer readable storage device, and thus, determines such component(s) are missing (YES branch of step 340), the boot service informs the OS-based agent that the boot firmware components are missing (in step 342) and the bootloader is executed to boot the operating system (in step 344)”) and Paragraph 0073, “The OS-based agent operating in the OS environment displays a warning message regarding the missing component(s) and requests user consent to retrieve and download the missing component(s) from a remotely located system (in step 350)”. As a result, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Note: Further note that applicant failed to properly tie the new limitation “the content notified to the user” to the various notifying steps in the first, second and third case in the claim and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the last limitation even covers displaying any content (even if it is same) for three cases would be differs only by the virtue of them being displayed at different times because the triggering requirements are different and all the three notification cannot be displayed at the same time.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, claim recites the limitation “the content notified”. The claim does not have a previous recitation of “the content notified” and as a result, lacks proper antecedent basis. For example, a lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to “said lever” or “the lever”, where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of lever and as a result, it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference to (MPEP 2173.05(e) [R-07.2015]).
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 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 of this title, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0201617 A1), hereinafter, “Park” in view of Pant et al. (US 2020/0348946 A1), hereinafter, “Pant”.
Regarding Claim 5, Park discloses a magnetic disk device comprising:
a host operated by a user (See, Fig. 1, Numeral 50, “Host”);
a nonvolatile memory (See, Fig. 1, Numeral 110, “Semiconductor memory device” and Paragraph 0037) including a firmware area in which first firmware and second firmware are stored (See, Paragraph 0006); and
a controller (See, Fig. 1, Numeral 120 and Paragraph 0036) determining whether or not the first firmware and the second firmware are normal for each arbitrary period (See, Paragraphs 0050, 0102 and 0103).
Park does not explicitly disclose if determining that at least one of the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, notifying the user of the information on whether or not the first firmware and the second firmware are normal, via the host, wherein if determining as a first case that both the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, the controller notifies the user that the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, via the host, and if determining as a second case that the first firmware is not normal and the second firmware is normal, the controlled notifies the user that the first firmware is not normal, via the host, or if determining as a third case that the first firmware is normal and that the second firmware is not normal, the controller notifies the user that the second firmware is not normal, via the host, and the content notified to the user by the controlled differs among the first case, the second case and the third case.
Pant discloses determining that at least one of a first firmware and a second firmware are not normal, notifying the user of the information on whether or not the first firmware and the second firmware are normal, via a host, wherein if determining as a first case that both the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, the controller notifies the user that the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, via the host, and if determining as a second case that the first firmware is not normal and the second firmware is normal, the controlled notifies the user that the first firmware is not normal, via the host, or if determining as a third case that the first firmware is normal and that the second firmware is not normal, the controller notifies the user that the second firmware is not normal, via the host (See, Paragraphs 0005, 0010, 0014, 0017, 0061 and 0068) and the content notified to the user by the controlled differs among the first case, the second case and the third case (See, Paragraph 0068, 0071 and 0073, Note: please see response to argument section for detailed analysis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to notify, when the first or second firmware are not normal in the system of Park, the user of the information on whether or not the first firmware and the second firmware are normal, via a host, wherein if determining as a first case that both the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, the controller notifies the user that the first firmware and the second firmware are not normal, via the host, and if determining as a second case that the first firmware is not normal and the second firmware is normal, the controlled notifies the user that the first firmware is not normal, via the host, or if determining as a third case that the first firmware is normal and that the second firmware is not normal, the controller notifies the user that the second firmware is not normal, via the host, and the content notified to the user by the controlled differs among the first case, the second case and the third case. (See, Pant, Paragraph 0068).
Regarding Claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Park and Pant further discloses wherein the controller performs error correction using ECC and detection of corruption for the first firmware and the second firmware, for each arbitrary period, determines that the first firmware is normal if the error correction is operable for the first firmware or no corruption is detected in the first firmware, and determines that the second firmware is normal if the error correction is operable for the second firmware or no corruption is detected in the second firmware (See, Park, Paragraphs 0101, 0102 and 0135).
Regarding Claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Park and Pant further discloses wherein the controller performs error correction using ECC and detection of corruption for the first firmware and the second firmware, for each arbitrary period, determines that the first firmware is not normal if the error correction is inoperable for the first firmware and a corruption is detected in the first firmware, and determines that the second firmware is not normal if the error correction is inoperable for the second firmware and a corruption is detected in the second firmware (See, Park, Paragraphs 0101, 0102, 0105 and 0135).
Regarding Claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Park and Pant further discloses wherein if determining that the first firmware is normal and that the second firmware is not normal, the controller copies the first firmware to the second firmware (See, Park, Paragraphs 0006 and 0122).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights