Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/746,450

DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD AND DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 18, 2024
Examiner
DALENCOURT, YVES
Art Unit
2457
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
759 granted / 902 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-5.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
927
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 902 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This office action is responsive to communication filed on 06/18/2024. Claim Objections Claims 3 – 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to delete “storage device” (line 3). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BARCZAK et al (US 2019/0042386; hereinafter BARCZAK). Regarding claim 1, BARCZAK discloses a data processing system, wherein: the data processing system comprises an application server and a storage device, and the storage device is a node in a storage system (paragraph [0069]); the application server comprises one or more first processors and one or more first memories coupled to the one or more first processors, wherein the one or more first memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more first processors (paragraphs [0068 – 0069], [0071]) to: send a first management request to the storage device, wherein the first management request requests to configure a processing mode of the storage device for a data access request (paragraph [0051]; BARCZAK discloses that the storage management 402 sends a config/reconfig request 412 to the data node 404 requesting that one or more storage devices included in the data node 404 be configured/reconfigured according to specifications provided in the config/reconfig request 412); and send a data access request to the storage device, wherein the data access request requests to access data stored in the storage device (paragraph [0028]; BARCZAK discloses that an application sends I/O requests associated with the I/O workload to the logical storage driver, and the I/O requests are intercepted and processed using the attached storage processing logic and a storage configuration defined for the I/O workload); and the storage device comprises one or more second processors and one or more second memories coupled to the one or more second processors (paragraph [0037]; BARCZAK discloses that the computing environment 100 may include computing components, such as “nodes” (processor(s), memory, and/or peripherals) that may be communicatively coupled together by, for example, a fabric), wherein the one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors (paragraph [0037]; BARCZAK discloses that the various processes and/or other functionality contained within the computing environment 100 may be executed on a computing device, such as a server, having one or more processors that are in communication with one or more memory modules) to: receive the first management request (paragraph [0038]; BARCZAK discloses that a processing module may be considered a service with one or more processes executing on a server or other computer hardware. Such services may be centrally hosted functionality or a service application that receives requests and provides output to other services or computing devices); configure, based on the first management request, the processing mode of the storage device for the data access request (paragraph [0048]; BARCZAK discloses that the storage processing logic 316 may be configured to continue using a default storage configuration 306 in combination with a storage configuration 314); and process, based on the processing mode, the data access request sent by the application server (paragraph [0048]; BARCZAK discloses that the storage processing logic 316 may be configured to continue to access the default storage configuration 306, as well as access the new storage configuration 314, as part of processing an I/O workload generated by the application302). Regarding claim 2, BARCZAK discloses the data processing system according to claim 1, wherein when configuring, based on the first management request, the processing mode of the storage device for the data access request, the one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors to: configure a working mode of the storage device based on the first management request (paragraph [0051]; BARCZAK discloses that the after receiving the config/reconfig request 412 from the storage management 402, the data node 404 may initiate preparation 416 of the storage devices included in the data node 404 according to the specifications received from the storage management 402). Regarding claim 4, BARCZAK discloses the data processing system according to claim 2, wherein when configuring the working mode of the storage device based on the first management request, the storage device one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors to: send a management command to a hard disk of the storage device based on the first management request, wherein the management command is used to requests to configure a working mode of the hard disk (paragraph [0052]; BARCZAK discloses that responsibility for notifying the logical storage driver 406 about the configuration/reconfiguration may be delegated to the data node 404. For example, in response to receiving the config/reconfig request 412 from storage management 402, the data node 404 notifies the logical storage driver 406 (via a message) of the configuration/reconfiguration of the storage configuration, whereupon the logical storage driver 406 switches operation to detached mode). Regarding claim 5, BARCZAK discloses the data processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more first memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more first processors to send a second management request to the storage device, the second management request is used to deliver a first computing task to the storage device (paragraphs [0026], [0071]; BARCZAK discloses that an I/O workload may be a set of I/O tasks generated by an application or service configured to interface with network and storage infrastructures in order to perform I/O operations (e.g., read, write, trim, sync).); and the one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors to execute the first computing task based on the second management request (paragraphs [0060], [0063]; BARCZAK discloses that the storage processing logic may replace existing storage processing logic with new storage processing logic that interfaces with a new storage configuration included in the second storage stack. For example, the storage processing logic sends I/O tasks included in the I/O workload to the new storage configuration included in the second storage stack ); and feed back a computation result of the first computing task to the application server (paragraphs [0040 - 0041], [0060]; BARCZAK discloses that the I/O tracer 208 may include utility software configured to monitor driver calls and parameters sent to the logical storage driver 204, monitor the results of the driver call, or generate trace data 210 that describes the driver call, parameters, or results. As a non-limiting example, the I/O tracer 208 may monitor an I/O request sent by the application 202 to the logical storage driver 204 by capturing execution results and metrics (e.g., success or fail, errors, time, duration, operation type (read, write, trim, sync), I/O size, process ID, a filename associated with the I/O). Regarding claim 6, BARCZAK discloses the data processing system according to claim 5, wherein the first computing task comprises a part or all of the following: data search, data migration, data computing, data encoding/decoding, data sorting, or data compression (paragraphs [0035 - 0036]; BARCZAK discloses that the trace data may be analyzed to determine storage processing logic 108 that implements one or more storage techniques (e.g., RAID, caching, tiering, partitioning, mirroring, etc.), and a storage configuration that includes one or more device drivers and storage devices predicted to improve processing of the I/O workload.). Regarding claim 7, BARCZAK discloses the data processing system according to claim 1, wherein: the one or more first memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more first processors to send a third management request to the storage device, wherein the third management request is used to requests to monitor a hard disk of the storage device (paragraphs [0035 - 0036]; BARCZAK discloses that the logical storage driver 106 intercepts I/O requests associated with the I/O workload and the I/O requests may be processed using the attached storage processing logic 108 and the storage configuration.); and the one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors to: monitor the hard disk of the storage device based on the third management request, and feed back a status of the hard disk to the application server (paragraph [0060]; BARCZAK discloses that detection of performance degradation associated with use of the first storage stack may trigger a notification alert that causes the logical storage driver to enable detached mode and forward I/O requests to a default storage stack for processing of the I/O workload). Regarding claim 9, BARCZAK discloses the storage device according to claim 8, wherein the storage device further comprises: a network interface card, wherein the network interface card comprises the one or more processors (paragraphs [0067 - 0068]). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARCZAK et al (US 2019/0042386; hereinafter BARCZAK) in view of MARONEY et al (US 2018/0032274; hereinafter MARONEY). Regarding claim 3, BARCZAK discloses the data processing system according to claim 1, wherein when configuring, based on the first management request, the processing mode of the storage device for the data access request (paragraph [0048]; BARCZAK discloses that the storage processing logic 316 may be configured to continue using a default storage configuration 306 in combination with a storage configuration 314), but fails to specifically disclose that the storage device one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors to: configure a processing priority of the data access request based on the first management request. MARONEY, in an analogous art, discloses that the storage device o one or more second memories store programming instructions for execution by the one or more second processors to: configure a processing priority of the data access request based on the first management request (paragraphs [0039 - 0040], [0051]; MARONEY discloses that the scheduling module 320 may determine priorities for the data access requests received from the DAS interface 241 and the NAS interface 243. The scheduling module 320 may determine (e.g., calculate) priorities for the data access requests based on one or more factors/parameters). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of BARCZAK by configuring a processing priority of the data access request based on the first management request as evidenced by BREWER for the purpose of providing a mechanism to remotely accessing data stored on a highly and reliable manner. Claims 8, and 10 – 20 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 2, and 4 - 7 with minor modifications in the claimed language. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 2, and 4 - 7 apply in claims 8, and 10 – 20. Therefore, claims 8, and 10 – 20 are rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiangyu Wang (US 2015/0121391) discloses a method and device for scheduling multiprocessor of system on chip (SOC). BREWER et al (US 2010/0248771) discloses a selectively allocating data channel resources to wireless communication devices within a wireless communications system. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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. /YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603936
EFFICIENT ITERATIVE COLLECTIVE OPERATIONS USING A NETWORK-ATTACHED MEMORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603847
QUALITY OF SERVICE QOS MANAGEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598340
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING AND ADDRESSING APPLICATIONS UTILIZING ADAPTIVE BITRATES WHEN PROVIDING VIDEO TRAFFIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598110
RELATIONAL NETWORK INFERENCING USING RANDOM TRAVERSAL PATHS OF A GRAPH REPRESENTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580873
EFFICIENT CHANNEL ALLOCATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (-5.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 902 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month