DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on Oct. 24, 2024. The application contains claims 1-25.
Claims 1-25 are pending
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 .
Priority
The present application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2023/106197, filed 07/06/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on October 24, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The large number of indefinite limitations recited in claims 5-20 and 22-25 hinders proper understanding of the invention recited in these claims. As a result, no prior art is applied to these claims. Applicant is urged to correct all the issues pointed out in this office action below to advance the prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1: the extra comma after “wherein” should be removed.
Claim 15 depends on both claim 14 (line 1) and claim 6 (line 12). The claim is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Reference characters “ID” used in the following claims should be enclosed within parentheses following the spelled-out version of the word or phrase being referenced so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 2, line 4
Claim 4, line 3
Claim 5, line 3, 6, and 7
Claim 6, line 3, 5, and 6
Claim 7, line 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
Claim 11, line 6, 9, 11, and 12
Claim 13, line 12, 13, 14, and 15
Claim 14, line 2
Claim 22, line 4
Claim 23, line 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 15
“and/or” used in the following claims should be amended to recite either “and” or “or” to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 2, line 5
Claim 10, line 5
Claim 11, line 3, 4, and 7
Claim 19, line 4
Claim 20, line 6
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-20 and 22-25 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sequence data stream ID" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the unique sequence data" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the new sequence ID" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the set of all sequence IDs" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the data protection function" in line 2, 5, 8, and 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the newest sequence ID" in line 6 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the protected sequence ID interval" in line 9 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the interval length" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the data protection function" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sequence data stream protection function" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the signature field" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sequence data tag" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the data integrity" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the corresponding sequence signature public key" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the data integrity" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the signature" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sequence storage device security private key" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the obtained sequence storage security public key" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sequence data signature" in line 11 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the current sequence ID" in line 12 and 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sequence ID" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the previous sequence data" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sequence data stream protection function" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sequence ID" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the latest sequence data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the signature information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sequence storage" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the data protection function" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the circular overwrite function" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the prohibition" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the storage container" in line 17 and 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the data" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what data it refers to. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the authenticity" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what data it refers to. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the set of sequence data indexes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the sequence data encryption function" in line 3-4 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "with the configuration content including at least one of the tag type, length, default value, and tag operations that can be performed" in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the underlined portion refers to sequence data, sequence data stream, or tags and what each means specifically, e.g., whose “length”. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the sequence data tags" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the requirements" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 17 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the configuration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one data stream" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the sequence container attribute" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 19 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the number of data" in line 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the height value" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the sequence ID" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the block data" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the host end" in line 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the data communication" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claim 6 is also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from its corresponding independent claim 5.
Dependent claims 8-10, 16, and 17 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 7, respectively.
Dependent claim 15 is also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from its corresponding independent claim 14.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from its corresponding independent claim 12, respectively.
Dependent claim 12 is also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from its corresponding independent claim 11.
Dependent claim 23 is also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from its corresponding independent claim 22.
Dependent claim 25 is also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from its corresponding independent claim 24.
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, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VISWANATHAN et al. (US 20190197246 A1).
With regard to claim 1,
VISWANATHAN teaches
a method for processing sequence data, performed by a storage device, wherein the storage device performs data processing operations in the form of sequence data streams (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0020]-[0021]: the cloud computing environment 110 collects streams of time series data 160 from resources 125, associates one or more of the streams of time series data 160 to a group 155 based upon a rule, and assigns the group 155 into which the time series data is collected to the access control container 150 of the tenant requesting access to the time series data, wherein time series data corresponds to “sequence data” and denying or allowing user requests to access time series data indicates “data processing operations” on the time series data), the method comprising:
the storage device receiving sequence data sent from a host terminal (Fig. 1; [0020]: the cloud computing environment 110 collects streams of time series data 160 from resources 125);
the storage device storing the sequence data in a form of a sequence data stream (Fig. 1; [0020]-[0021]: the security module 105 associates one or more of the streams of time series data 160 to a group 155 based upon a rule and assigns the group 155 into which the time series data is collected to the access control container 150 of the tenant requesting access to the time series data) and setting up corresponding sequence data mappings (Fig. 3; [0029]: the security module 105 maintains a first data structure 305 with mappings 310 that map container identifiers of access control containers to timestamps and group identifiers of groups. [0030]: the security module 105 maintains a second data structure 315 with mappings 320 that map group identifiers of groups of time series data to timestamps and stream identifiers of streams of time series data associated to respective groups. [0031]: the security module 105 maintains a third data structure 325 with mappings 330 that map stream identifiers of streams of time series data to fields defining respective streams. [0032]: the security module 105 maintains a fourth data structure 335 with mappings 340 that map group identifiers of groups of time series data to fields defining respective groups);
the storage device receiving data operation commands for the sequence data from the host terminal, and performing a corresponding process on the corresponding sequence data based on the sequence data mappings ([0033]: the security module 105 utilizes these data structures to assign and enforce access policies on access control containers of tenants of the cloud computing environment 410. The security module 105 defines and stores definitions of access policies, access control rules, groups of time series data, etc. within these data structures. Thus, when a request to access time series data is received, the security module 105 can query the data structures to determine what group, access policy, access control rules, and access control container are to be used to evaluate whether to allow or deny the request).
VISWANATHAN does not explicitly teach “a corresponding sequence data index”. However, as discussed above, VISWANATHAN in paragraph [0033] specifically teaches utilizing the four data structure mappings to search stored time series data and enforce access control policies, where the four data structure mappings perform the very function of “a corresponding sequence data index”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set up “a corresponding sequence data index” instead of four data structure mappings to perform the same function.
With regard to claim 2,
As discussed regarding claim 1, VISWANATHAN teaches all the limitations.
VISWANATHAN further teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein, the storage device comprises at least one sequence container, each of the at least one sequence container stores one or multiple types of sequence data, and each sequence container has a unique container ID ([0029]: the security module 105 maintains a first data structure 305 with mappings 310 that map container identifiers of access control containers to timestamps and group identifiers of groups, wherein different groups correspond to “multiple types of sequence data” and container identifiers correspond to “a unique container ID”);
the sequence container is set with attributes upon creation and/or after creation; wherein, the attributes of the sequence container store first description information of the stored sequence data, and the first description information is used by the host terminal to determine a method of accessing and using relevant sequence data based on the first description information ([0021]: the security module 105 creates an access policy 145 specifying access control rules for authorizing access to the time series data associated with the group 155. The security module 105 associates the access policy 145 to the access control container 150. When a request is received from a requestor to access time series data within the group 155, the security module 105 determines whether to allow or deny the request based upon the access control rules within the access policy 145. The access control rules correspond to “attributes” storing “first description information”).
With regard to claim 3,
As discussed regarding claim 2, VISWANATHAN teaches all the limitations.
VISWANATHAN further teaches
the method according to claim 2, wherein,, in response to deleting any one of the at least one sequence container in the storage device, all sequence data stored within the deleted sequence container is deleted; when deleting the sequence container, in a case that the storage device is set to data protection mode, the deletion of the sequence container is not allowed ([0021]: the access control rules can specify what users, services, applications, or other entities associated with the tenant or the cloud computing environment 110 are allowed read access, write access, and/or read/write access to certain time series data or certain time ranges of time series data within the group 155. Write access encompasses deleting data and the access control either allows or denies the operation).
With regard to claim 4,
As discussed regarding claim 2, VISWANATHAN teaches all the limitations.
VISWANATHAN further teaches
the method according to claim 2, wherein, each sequence container contains at least one sequence data stream, each of the at least one sequence data stream stores sequence data of a same type and has a unique sequence data stream ID (Fig. 3; [0029]-[0030]: each containers stores at least one group that has a group identifier);
the storage device responds to a sequence data stream deletion command by deleting all sequence data on any sequence data stream corresponding to the sequence data stream deletion command, wherein the sequence data stream is capable of being set to be undeletable (Fig. 4B; [0038]: various types of access control rules can be executed to implement read and write access control to the time series data within the group 465);
the attributes of the sequence data stream are set after its creation; the attributes of the sequence data stream comprise second description information of the data stored on the sequence data stream (Fig. 4B; [0038]: an access control rule provides read access to time series data of the group 465 for time series data having timestamps following creation of the group 465).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VISWANATHAN et al. (US 20190197246 A1) in view of Cen et al. (US 20160197971 A1).
With regard to claim 21,
As discussed regarding claim 1, VISWANATHAN teaches all the limitations.
VISWANATHAN does not teach
the method according to claim 1, wherein the sequence data comprises audio-video data, and wherein the storage device, in response to a transcoding command, utilizes an encoding/decoding circuitry within the storage device to decode the audio-video data corresponding to a first encoding standard specified in the transcoding command and then encode the decoded audio-video data into audio-video data of a second encoding standard.
Cen teaches
the method according to claim 1, wherein the sequence data comprises audio-video data, and wherein the storage device, in response to a transcoding command, utilizes an encoding/decoding circuitry within the storage device to decode the audio-video data corresponding to a first encoding standard specified in the transcoding command and then encode the decoded audio-video data into audio-video data of a second encoding standard ([0021]: transcode a video content file into several different encoding standards (e.g., H.265/MPEG-H HEVC, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, H.263/MPEG-4 Part 2, H.262/MPEG-2, Google™ (On2) codecs, Microsoft™ codecs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VISWANATHAN to incorporate the teachings of Cen to utilize an encoding/decoding circuitry within the storage device to decode the audio-video data corresponding to a first encoding standard specified in the transcoding command in response to a transcoding command and then encode the decoded audio-video data into audio-video data of a second encoding standard. Doing so would allow for the content to be shared with devices with different playback capabilities (e.g., encoding/decoding capabilities, resolution, network bandwidth) and/or various other requirements as taught by Cen ([0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights