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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive. The examiner believes that rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is still appropriate for the reasons detailed below. The examiner disagrees with the argument that the combination of Hawkins and Balb (and Olarig) do not teach the independent claims for the reasons detailed below.
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 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations “receiving and updating” are an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitations “outputting . . .” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
• No, the limitations “receiving,” “updating,” and “outputting” are additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claims 4-12, the recite limitations that either characterize types of status information, recite further data receipt/transmission, or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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) 1, 4- 6, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20050283543 A1) in view of Balb (US 20210182141 A1).
As to claim 1, Hawkins teaches an operation method of a slave device configured to communicate with a master device and to store a status log, the operation method comprising:
receiving first status information from the master device (see paragraph 0020, disclosing active CMC sending event information to a standby CMC);
generating one or more second status information for the slave device (see paragraph 0020, disclosing that standby -CMC storing local event information in its memory; and
updating the status log based on the first status information and the one or more second status information (see paragraph 0020, disclosing that the standby CMC stores both received event information and its local even information in an event log).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach outputting the status log indication whether a fault indication of the slave device arises as a result of a fault at the slave device or the master device.
However, Balb teaches transmitting a health status to a host that can indicate issues or risk of issues and perform corrective actions (see paragraphs 053-056; the examiner interprets that since targeted corrective actions are taken, the status information indicates which device is degraded or has heightened risk of failure).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hawkins with the methods of Balb because providing such status can help mitigate adverse outcomes (see paragraph 0013).
As to claim 4, the reference(s) teach claim 1 as referenced above. They do not explicitly teach the status log is stored in a non-volatile memory circuit included in the slave device.
However, the Hawkins the use of non-volatile memory (see paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the above reference(s) with the use of non-volatile memory because it allows data to be stored across a power cycle or power failure.
As to claim 5, Hawkins further teaches transmitting the one or more second status information to the master device (see paragraph 0020, disclosing that the standby CMC transfers its event information to the active CMC).
As to claim 6, Hawkins further teaches the slave device is configured to: receive the first status information from the master device through an out-of-band channel; and transmit the one or more second status information to the master device through the out- of-band channel (see paragraph 0018, disclosing a dedicated connection to communicate the even information).
As to claim 19, Hawkins teaches A master device communicating with a first slave device, the master device comprising:
a status sensor configured to sense a status of the master device and generate a first status value for the master device based on the status (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0015, 0020 and throughout, disclosing sensors for event data); and
a baseboard management circuit configured to provide first status information including the first status value to the first slave device (see paragraph 0020, disclosing active CMC sending event information to a standby CMC),
whereing the master device is a server device (see fig. 2 and associated text, disclosing that one module has a host CPU).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach that the information is provided when the first status value is out of a reference range or that the slave device is a memory device.
However, Balb teaches a memory device providing a health status that includes a parameter that is indicated to a host when the parameter crosses a threshold (see paragraphs 0013).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hawkins with the methods of Balb because providing such status can help mitigate adverse outcomes (see paragraph 0013).
As to claim 20, the references teach claim 19 as detailed above. They further teach the master device is further configured to communicate with a plurality of slave devices including the first slave device, and the master device is further configured to provide the first status information to each of the plurality of slave devices when the first status value is out of the reference range (see Hawkins paragraph 0009, disclosing configurations with two or more controllers; the examiner notes that this is merely an iteration of the configuration.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and Balb in view of Redaelli (US 20240176498 A1).
As to claim 2, the reference(s) teach claim 1 as referenced above. They do not explicitly teach
performing a fault prevention operation for the slave device based on the first status information.
However, Redaelli teaches a memory device transmitting its temperature status to a host and the host then transmitting a command to throttle to the memory device when that temperature is above a threshold (see paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hawkins with the methods of Redaelli because it reduces the likelihood of failures (see paragraph 0012).
As to claim 3, the reference(s) teach claim 2 as referenced above. They further teach
the fault prevention operation is a performance throttling operation for the slave device (see Redaelli teaches a memory device transmitting its temperature status to a host and the host then transmitting a command to throttle to the memory device when that temperature is above a threshold -see paragraph 0048).
Claim(s) 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins and Balb in view of Olarig (US 20190272021 A1).
As to claim 7, the reference(s) teach claim 6 as referenced above. They do not explicitly teach the out-of-band channel is implemented based on at least one of an Inter Integrated Circuit (I2C) protocol, an Improved Inter Integrated Circuit (I3C) protocol, a System Management Bus (SMBus) protocol, and a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) protocol.
However, Olarig teaches using I2C or SMBus as side band channels (see paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the reference(s) with the methods of Olarig because it allows communication channel to report status information such as power consumption (see paragraphs 0004, 0040, and Summary).
As to claim 8, the reference(s) teach claim 6 as referenced above. They do not explicitly teach the slave device is a Solid State Drive (SSD), and the slave device is configured to receive the first status information as a NonVolatile Memory express Management Interface message from the out-of-band channel.
However, Olarig teaches communication between a service processor and SSD using the NVMe-MI (see paragraphs 0029-0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the reference(s) with the methods of Olarig because it allows communication channel to report status information such as power consumption (see paragraphs 0004, 0040, and Summary).
As to claim 9, the reference(s) teach claim 8 as detailed above. They further teach
a status value (see Olarig paragraph 0035, disclosing a measurement); an operation code indicating a type of status information represented by the status value (see Hawkins claim 19, disclosing a type of sensor data); and a timestamp corresponding to a time point at which the status value was measured see Olarig paragraph 0035, disclosing a timestamp).
As to claim 10, the reference(s) teach claim 8 as referenced above. They do not explicitly teach the slave device further includes a memory cell, and the slave device is configured to perform a read operation or a write operation to the memory cell through an in-band channel that is different from the out-of-band channel.
However, Olarig teaches a PCIe host controller interface separate from the side band interface for status information (see paragraph 0030-0033).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the reference(s) with the methods of Olarig because it allows communication channel to report status information such as power consumption (see paragraphs 0004, 0040, and Summary).
As to claim 11, the reference(s) teach claim 10 as referenced above. They further teach a communication speed of the in-band channel is higher than a communication speed of the out-of-band channel (see Olarig paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0051, disclosing a host connection that is PCIe vs a separate I2C bus.).
As to claim 12, the reference(s) teach claim 10 as referenced above. They further teach the in-band channel is implemented based on at least one of a Peripheral Component Interconnect express (PCIe) protocol, a Double Data Rate (DDR) protocol, a Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SATA) protocol, and aNonVolatile Memory express (NVMe) protocol (see Olarig paragraph 0030-0033, disclosing a PCIe host controller interface separate from the side band interface for status information).
As to claim 13, Hawkins teaches an electronic slave device communicating with an external master device through an in-band channel and an out-of-band channel (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0018, disclosing a bus through which CMCs communicate as well as a dedicated channel for status communications, the electronic slave device comprising:
a slave device status sensor configured to sense a status of the electronic slavedevice and generate a first status value based on the status for the electronic slave device (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0015, 0020 and throughout, disclosing sensors for event data);
a status manager configured to receive second status information for the external master device through the out-of-band channel (see paragraph 0020, disclosing that the standby CMC transfers its event information to the active CMC through a dedicated channel), and to output first status information including the first status value to the external master device through the out-of-band channel (see paragraph 0020, disclosing active CMC sending event information to a standby CMC), store a status log and update the status log based on the first and second status information(see paragraph 0020, disclosing that the standby CMC stores both received event information and its local even information in an event log).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach the memory cells or a main controller configured to perform a read operation or a write operation to the memory cells based on a command received through the in-band channel.
However, Olarig teaches communication between a service processor and SSD use a side band for status information as well as a host controller interface separate from the side band interface (see paragraph 0029-0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the reference(s) with the methods of Olarig because it allows communication channel to report status information such as power consumption (see paragraphs 0004, 0040, and Summary).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach output the status log indicating whether a fault indication of the electronic slave device arises as a result of a fault at the electronic slave device or at the external master device.
However, Balb teaches transmitting a health status to a host that can indicate issues or risk of issues and perform corrective actions (see paragraphs 053-056; the examiner interprets that since targeted corrective actions are taken, the status information indicates which device is degraded or has heightened risk of failure).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hawkins with the methods of Balb because providing such status can help mitigate adverse outcomes (see paragraph 0013).
As to claim 14, the reference(s) teach claim 13 as detailed above. They further teach a communication speed of the in-band channel is higher than a communication speed of the out-of-band channel (see Olarig paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0051, disclosing a host connection that is PCIe vs a separate I2C bus).
As to claim 15, the reference(s) teach claim 13 as detailed above. They further teach the electronic device is a Solid State Drive (SSD) (see Olarig) , and the out-of-band channel is implemented based on at least one of an Inter Integrated Circuit (I2C) protocol, an Improved Inter Integrated Circuit (I3C) protocol, a System Management Bus (SMBus) protocol (see Olarig paragraph 0051, disclosing using I2C or SMBus as side band channels), and a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) protocol, and the in-band channel is implemented based on at least one of a Peripheral Component Interconnect express (PCIe) protocol ( see Olarig paragraph 0030-0033, disclosing a PCIe host controller interface separate from the side band interface for status information), a Double Data Rate (DDR) protocol, a Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SATA) protocol, and a NonVolatile Memory express (NVMe) protocol.
As to claim 16, the reference(s) teach claim 15 as detailed above. They further teach the main controller is configured to receive the command as a NonVolatile Memory express command, and the status manager is configured to receive the first status information as a NonVolatile Memory express Management Interface message (Olarig teaches communication between a service processor and SSD using the NVMe-MI see paragraphs 0029-0041).
As to claim 17, the reference(s) teach claim 13 as detailed above. They further teach the status manager is configured to control an operation of the main controller based on the first status information and the second status information (see Hawkins paragraph 0009, disclosing that a standby-CMC can take over in case of failure of the active-CMC).
As to claim 18, Hawkins does not explicitly teach the status manager is configured to operate based on a first voltage received from the external device, and the main controller is configured to operate based on a second voltage received from the external device, the second voltage being higher than the first.
However, Olarig teaches supplying different power rails of varying voltages to different components (see rails 33 and 34-37 in paragraphs 0030-0035) based on a power rail from a PCIe connection (see rail 30). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hawkins with Olrig because it allows communication channel to report status information such as power consumption (see paragraphs 0030-0035, 0004, 0040, and Summary) and it allows for differing power needs for internal devices allowing greater flexibility in which chips/devices may be used.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights