DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant's submission of the amendment dated 2/24/2026.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
DEFICIENCIES IN THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim Rejections - 35 USC ' 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the response” at the fourth-to-last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, this limitation has been treated as “a [[the]] response.” The dependent claims inherit this issue. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naaman et al (US 2016/0173238) in view of Yang et al (US 2020/0322466) and Burstein et al (US 2022/0158772).
Regarding Claim 1, Naaman teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a storage device (receiver shown on Fig. 1) including a memory device (memory 510 of Transmitter or Receiver of Fig. 5); and
an external device (transmitter shown on Fig. 1) including an external memory (memory 510 of Transmitter or Receiver of Fig. 5) storing a data packet that includes a plurality of data sectors (the transmitter creates a data packet at step S201 of Fig. 2, including multiple messages/data sectors), and configured to provide the data packet to the storage device (the data packet is received by the storage device/receiver at step 301 of Fig. 3), wherein the storage device is configured to provide, in response to a failure of storage of a first data sector of the plurality of data sectors in the memory device, a Ready To Transfer (RTT) data packet requesting the first data sector to the external memory (if a message/first data sector included in the packet has not been received and is therefore failed to be stored by the receiver, step 319 of Fig. 3 will be performed, where a PNACK/packet requesting the missing message/first data sector will be sent to the external device, Paragraph 0025, also see step 401 of Fig. 4), wherein the external device is configured to provide the first data sector to the storage device to re-store the first data sector in the memory device in response to the RTT data packet (steps 407 and 413 of Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0026 and 0028).
However, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the external device configured to provide a command for storing the data packet.
Yang (US 2020/0322466) teaches an external device (First device of Fig. 2) configured to provide a command for storing a data packet (corresponding to an RDMA write command for data to be written to the Second device of Fig. 2, Paragraph 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the command for storing a data packet (as taught by Yang) in the cited prior art in order to transfer data from one device to another, allowing for the sharing of data.
Further, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach wherein the storage device is configured to not provide the response to the command to the external device until the first data sector is completely re-stored in the memory device, such that the storage device re-acquires the first data sector from the external memory which is configured to maintain the data packet until the response is received.
Burstein teaches wherein a storage device (responder 26 of Fig. 3) is configured to not provide a response to the command to the external device until a first data sector is completely re-stored in the memory device (the response corresponding to acknowledgement 76 of Fig. 3, which is not sent to the requester/external device until data of write 4 [a first data sector] is re-stored in the memory of the responder, “NIC 34 continues to receive the additional RDMA Write packets in the sequence and stores the data from these packets in memory 42 of computer 26,” and “computer 26 arranges the received packet data in memory 42,” Paragraphs 0038-0040), such that the storage device re-acquires the first data sector from the external memory which is configured to maintain the data packet until the response is received (as responder 26 re-acquires the data from write 4 by sending a NAK to the requester, the requester/external memory is obviously maintaining the data from write 4 until at least the response/acknowledgment 76 of Fig. 4 is received).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the response of Burstein in the cited prior art so the requester knows data was successfully stored.
Regarding Claim 2, the cited prior art teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the RTT data packet includes at least one of information indicating the first data sector (the offset information of step 321 of Fig. 3 indicates the offset information for the first data sector/message, Paragraph 0025) and information indicating that storage of the first data sector has failed.
Regarding Claim 3, the cited prior art teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the storage device is configured to receive the first data sector from the external device and re-store the first data sector in the memory device (step 413 of Fig. 4, Paragraph 0028).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naaman et al (US 2016/0173238) in view of Yang et al (US 2020/0322466, Burstein et al (US 2022/0158772)) and Kim (US 2014/0047269).
Regarding Claim 4, the cited prior art teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device is configured with a Universal Flash Storage (UFS) device.
Kim teaches a UFS device (Paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the UFS device in the cited prior art in order to increase speed and reduce power consumption compared to other storage protocols.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING NON-PRIOR ART REJECTIONS/OBJECTIONS
Rejections – Double Patenting
Applicant's terminal disclaimer filed 2/24/2026 has overcome the Examiner’s prior double patenting rejections and thus are withdrawn.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
On pages 3-4 of the submitted remarks, applicant argues the cited prior art fails to teach “wherein the storage device is configured to provide, in response to a failure of storage of a first data sector of the plurality of data sectors in the memory device, a Ready To Transfer (RTT) data packet requesting the first data sector to the external memory” as recited in claim 1, because Naaman teaches providing a PNACK when a portion of the packet was not delivered, and not in response to a failure of a storage of a first data sector of the plurality of data sectors in the memory device.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
When a packet is sent by a transmitter, it is obvious that all parts of the packet (referred to as “messages” by Naaman) must be stored in memory to be successfully received. When a timeout occurs in Naaman, the storage of at least one message has failed to be stored in a memory device of the receiver, and this message must be re-transmitted.
Therefore, Naaman teaches “wherein the storage device is configured to provide, in response to a failure of storage of a first data sector of the plurality of data sectors in the memory device, a Ready To Transfer (RTT) data packet requesting the first data sector to the external memory” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant's argument that the cited prior art fails to teach the amended limitations of “wherein the storage device is configured to not provide the response to the command to the external device until the first data sector is completely re-stored in the memory device, such that the storage device re-acquires the first data sector from the external memory which is configured to maintain the data packet until the response is received” has been considered and is persuasive. Thus, the prior rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made as noted above.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-4 have been rejected in the application.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00- 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights