/DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application 18/917,867, filed on 10/16/2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Applicant has elected group I, claims 1-8 and 18, without traverse in response to the Election/Restriction requirement filed on 01/15/2026. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected claims. As a result, claims 1-8 and 18 are pending in this office action.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202311370309.5, filed on 10/20/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-8 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea of a method for generating a writing sequence by re-sorting various subdata contained in target data, as explained in detail below. The claim does not include elements that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements can be concepts performed in the human mind which do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a data writing method, at least in part:
re-sorting various subdata contained in target data to generate a writing sequence (e.g., observing and generating a data sequence by sorting data on a file can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper), wherein the writing sequence is different from an original arrangement sequence of the subdata in the target data (e.g., observing and evaluating the generated data sequence can be performed in the human mind);
executing writing operation on the subdata according to the writing sequence (e.g., writing using the generated data sequence can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper); and locking the writing sequence, or prohibiting execution of an action for generating the writing sequence after determining that the writing operation is executed on all the subdata (e.g., preventing other action performed on the writing sequence can be can be performed in the human mind including evaluation, judgement and opinion).
Claim 1 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., Mental Processes] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Claim 1 does not have additional element(s) or a combination element in the claim indicative of integration into a practical application. There is no additional element(s) indicative of inventive concept or improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. There is no additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible-subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2 and 3 are similar to claim 1, fall within the Mental Processes [e.g., abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 2 and 3 further recite the re-sorting method, which can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion using pen and paper. Claims 2 and 3 do not have additional element(s) or a combination element in the claim indicative of integration into a practical application. There are no additional element(s) indicative of inventive concept or improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. There are no additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 do not qualify as eligible-subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4-8 are similar to claim 1, fall within the Mental Processes [e.g., abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claims 4-8 further recite the writing operation on the subdata according to the writing sequence, which can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion using pen and paper. Claims 4-8 do not have additional element(s) or a combination element in the claim indicative of integration into a practical application. There are no additional element(s) indicative of inventive concept or improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. There are no additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or judicial exception. Therefore, claims 4-8 do not qualify as eligible-subject matter under 35 USC 101.
In claim 18, a "memory” is being recited. The memory comprises a storage controller, a sequence adjuster, an abort controller and a storage array which can be interpreted as software components. Claim 18 does not have any structural hardware components to execute the recited features. Claim 18 is classified as computer program per se. The computer program per se is neither computer components nor statutory processes, as it is not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer program product does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other elements of a computer which permitted computer program’s functionality to be realized. The descriptions of the program product are claiming a data structures per se. Claim 18 falls into non-statutory categories such as abstract ideas which constitute “descriptive material”. ''Abstract ideas, Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759, or the mere manipulation of abstract ideas, Schrader, 22 F.3d at 292-93, 30 USPQ2d at 1457 58, is not patentable.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “…recording each of the first arrangement sequences and a corresponding arrangement sequence identifier into a sequence list if a quantity of the first arrangement sequences is multiple, based on a target number generated by a preset random number generator, search for an arrangement sequence identifier matching the target number from the sequence list…”. Claim 2 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The dependent claims 3, 4 and 6-8 are rejected because they are depended on claim 2.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Referring to claim 1, Yu discloses a data writing method (See para. [0064], a write operation that is performed in any target application installed in a terminal device), comprising: re-sorting various subdata contained in target data to generate a writing sequence (See para. [0036]-para. [0038], acquire a data sorting request for a to-be-sorted data sequence), wherein the writing sequence is different from an original arrangement sequence of the subdata in the target data (See para. [0038] and para. [0039], the original data sequence is [0, 5, 2, 6, 8, 7, 6] and the writing sequence is [0, 2, 6, 9, 8, 7, 4, 1]);
executing writing operation on the subdata according to the writing sequence (See para. [0079], executing a data write request according to the to-be-sorted writing sequence) […].
Yu does not explicitly disclose locking the sequence.
Louie discloses locking the sequence, or prohibiting execution of an action for generating the sequence after determining that the writing operation is executed on all the subdata (See para. [0024]- para. [0026] and Figure 3, when any one bit has been programmed with any data, the entire OTP block is locked).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the sequence of Yu to be locked, as taught by Louie. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to verify whether any of the OTP blocks have been programmed and lock the OTP block from being erased since it is typically desirable that an OTP memory block not be changed in any once it is programmed as desired. This provides a user with the ability to keep others from erasing the OTP memory (See Louie, para. [0024]-para. [0026]). In addition, both references (Louie and Yu) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as programming non-volatile one-time programmable memory. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 5, Yu discloses wherein the executing writing operation on the subdata according to the writing sequence, comprises: setting a corresponding idle character for each of the subdata; and writing the idle character into a next storage address adjacent to a storage address after writing each of the subdata into the storage address, wherein a number of bytes of the idle character is greater than or equal to a number of bytes of the corresponding subdata (See para. [0040], and para. [0079] and Figure 3, the data sorting request carries a write address. The index value corresponding to each piece of to-be-sorted data in the data sorting result is acquired in sequence, and an index value sequence with a sequence length the same as that of the to-be-sorted data sequence is generated according to acquired index values. The sequence length has a mapping relationship with a quantity of to-be-sorted data in the to-be-sorted data sequence, and indicates the quantity of to-be-sorted data in the to-be-sorted data sequence. A data write request for the index value sequence is transmitted to the data read/write component, and the index value sequence is stored into the write address through the data read/write component).
Referring to claim 18, Yu discloses a memory (See para. [0008], at least one processor, at least one memory), comprising: a storage controller (See para. [0008], a network interface is configured to provide communication function, the at least one memory is configured to store a computer program), a sequence adjuster (See para. [0007], acquiring a data sorting request for a data sequence), and a storage array (See para. [0009], a computer-readable storage medium); wherein the sequence adjuster is configured for re-sorting various subdata contained in target data to generate a writing sequence (See para. [0036]-para.[0038], acquire a data sorting request for a to-be-sorted data sequence), wherein the writing sequence is different from an original arrangement sequence of the subdata in the target data (See para. [0038] and para. [0039], the original data sequence is [0, 5, 2, 6, 8, 7, 6] and the writing sequence is [0, 2, 6, 9, 8, 7, 4, 1]); the storage controller is configured for executing writing operation on the subdata in the storage array according to the writing sequence (See para. [0079], executing a data write request according to the to-be-sorted writing sequence) […];
Yu does not explicitly disclose an abort controller is configured for locking the writing sequence.
Louie discloses the abort controller is configured for locking the writing sequence, or prohibiting execution of an action for generating the writing sequence after determining that the writing operation is executed on all the subdata (See para. [0024]- para. [0026] and Figure 3, when any one bit has been programmed with any data, the entire OTP block is locked).
Therefore, it 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 was made to modify the sequence of Yu to be locked, as taught by Louie. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to verify whether any of the OTP blocks have been programmed and lock the OTP block from being erased since it is typically desirable that an OTP memory block not be changed in any once it is programmed as desired. This provides a user with the ability to keep others from erasing the OTP memory (See Louie, para. [0024]-para. [0026]). In addition, both references (Louie and Yu) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as programming non-volatile one-time programmable memory. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are not rejected under 35 USC 103 rejections.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US 2022/0359016 A1) discloses the device (10A) has a first storage circuit (20) for storing a set of first data (104), where the first data comprises a set of bits. A second storage circuit (30) stores a set of second data (106), where the second data comprises a set of bits. A reading circuit (40) reads the second data from the second storage circuit to form a first sequence, and selects a first portion of the first data according to the first sequence, reads the first portion of the first data from the first storage circuit to form a target sequence, outputs the target sequence to serve as an identity code (102), where logical values of the bits of the first data are randomly distributed, and logical values of the bits of the second data are pre-defined by a user or randomly distributed.
Yoon et al. (US 2024/0428890 A1) discloses a method for selecting a sequence identifier for detecting a target analyte, which is may include: obtaining a plurality of first sequence identifiers found in a first layer at which a target analyte is positioned in a biological taxonomy of organisms having a hierarchical structure, selecting second sequence identifiers among the first sequence identifiers at least partially based on an occurring frequency of the first sequence identifiers in the first layer and an occurring frequency of the first sequence identifiers in a second layer which is a higher layer than the first layer and selecting a third sequence identifier for detecting the target analyte among the second sequence identifiers at least partially based on an occurring frequency of the second sequence identifiers in the first layer and an occurring frequency of the second sequence identifiers in a third layer which is a higher layer than the second layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, AMY NG can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164