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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by this Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Romania on 17 November 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ROA202300705 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by this Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract language comprises various numbers referring to drawings. It would be more appropriate to delete the numbers and attached parenthesis. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 16-30 and 32-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Per claim 16, line 1, it would be more appropriate to replace “, DMS,” with --(“DMS”)--. Line 2, it would be more appropriate to replace “, non-OS,” with --(“non-OS”)--.
Per claim 17, line 9, “first” before “signal processor” should be deleted as line 5 of the instant claim only teaches “a signal processor”. Another suggestion is to change “a signal processor” on line 5 to “a first signal processor”.
Per claim 20, line 1, “the signal processor” is objected for the same reason set forth above for claim 17.
Per claim 23, line 3, it would be more appropriate to insert –signal-- before “processor” if this limitation to referring to “signal processor” in claim 17. Line 4, it would be more appropriate to replace “, QoS,” with --(“QoS”)--.
Per claim 25, line 2, it would be more appropriate to replace “, OTA,” with --(“OTA”)--.
Per claim 26, line 4, it would be more appropriate to delete “its” due to typographical and/or grammatical errors.
Per claim 28, line 2, it would be more appropriate to insert --or-- before “a back-up of”.
Per claim 29, line 2, it would be more appropriate to replace “is” with --are---. On line 3, it would be more appropriate to replace “it resides” with --they reside--, and replace “sends” with --send--.
Per claim 30, line 2, it would be more appropriate to replace “, IoT,” with --(“IoT”)--.
Per claim 32, line 2, it would be more appropriate to replace “, ROM,” with --(“ROM”)--, and replace “, RAM,” with --(“RAM”)--.
Per claim 33, line 1, it would be more appropriate to replace “, DMS,” with --(“DMS”)--.
All dependent claims are objected to as inheriting the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from. 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.
Claims 16-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 16, line 4, “the non-OS embedded device” is indefinite. The claim teaches a plurality of non-OS embedded devices without specifying which one is “the non-OS embedded device”.
Per claim 19, lines 2-3, it is unclear whether “a data chunk identifier” and “chunk_id” are the same identifiers (specification appears to teach in page 5, lines 21-22 that they are the same identifier).
Per claim 24, line 3, “the same data chunk” lack sufficient antecedent basis. It would be more appropriate to change “the” before “same” with “a”.
Per claim 29, lines 1-2, “the signal processor”, “the transmitter”, “the first non-OS embedded device”, and “the second non-OS embedded device” all lack sufficient antecedent basis. It appears that the claim should be dependent on claim 21 in order to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the said terms. For the purpose of examination and claim interpretation, the instant claim is assumed to be dependent on claim 21 instead of claim 16.
Per claim 32, it is unclear how the claimed at least one memory (which may be interpreted to be one memory) can comprises several different types of memory (ROM, RAM, flash, etc). If the Applicant intended the at least one memory to be one of the listed types of memory, it would be more appropriate to replace “and” on line 3 with “or”. For the purpose of examination and claim interpretation, the at least one memory is assumed to be one of the listed types of memories.
Per claim 33, line 6, “the non-OS embedded device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, and it would be more appropriate to replace “the” before “non-OS” line 6 with “a”.
Per claim 34, line 5, “the at least one memory” is indefinite as line 3 of the instant claim teaches another “at least one memory” while claim 33 already teaches “at least one memory”. It is unclear whether these are the same “at least one memory”. If so, it would be more appropriate to insert --the-- before “at least one memory” on line 3 of the instant claim.
Per claim 35, line 4, “the signal processor” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
All dependent claims are rejected as inheriting the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariappan et al. [Pub.No.: US 20210409413 A1] (hereinafter “Mariappan”), and further in view of Bachar et al. [Patent No.: US 10,965,758 B2] (hereinafter “Bachar”).
Independent Claims:
Per claim 16, Mariappan teaches:
A communication network for operating a distributed memory system, DMS (see Fig. 3A, storage system 300a), the communication network comprising a plurality of non-operating system, non-OS, embedded devices (see Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047]-[0048], Device A 320a and Device B 320b, which are USB storage devices without an embedded operating system, see paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; also see Fig. 5, remote device 520 is a not embedded with an operating system) having at least one memory (see Fig. 3A, storage 321a) wherein the at least one memory of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices is configured to have a first portion of memory reserved for the non-OS embedded device (see Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047], private access partition 323a restricted to device A 320a) and a second portion of memory reserved and available for at least one other non-OS embedded device within the communication network to use (see Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047], shared access partition 323a that’s accessible with user device 310).
Mariappan does not teach that its user device 310 is also a non-OS embedded device within the communication network. However, Mariappan teaches the user device may be a network-connected computing device (see Mariappan, paragraph [0040], lines 1-6). Bachar teaches a computing system wherein Internet of Things (IoT) devices are connected to computer networks to collect and exchange data in order to control devices such as household appliances (see Bachar, col. 1, lines 34-41). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bachar’s IoT devices as the user/client devices in Mariappan in order to implement a computer network that allows IoT devices to control household appliances. In combined teachings of Mariappan and Bachar, Mariappan’s second portion of memory would be reserved for sharing with another non-OS embedded device within the communication network to use (note that based on the instant application’s specification in page 3, lines 16-32, an IoT device is a non-OS embedded device).
Per claim 33, the claim is the method claim corresponding to the communication network of claim 16. As such it is rejected on the same ground mutatis mutandis.
Dependent Claims:
Per claim 30, Mariappan in view of Bachar further teaches the communication network is configured as an Internet of Things, IoT, network (see Bachar, col. 1, lines 34-41, and the rejection of claim 16 set forth above. The combined teaching of Mariappan and Bachar would render the network an IoT network as it would incorporate IoT devices).
Claims 17-20, 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariappan, and further in view of Bachar and Wang [Pub.No.: US 2019/0163419 A1] (hereinafter “Wang”).
Independent Claim:
Per claim 31, by applying the same grounds of rejection set forth above for claim 16, Mariappan in view of Bachar similarly teach or render obvious:
A non-OS embedded device (see Mariappan, Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047]-[0048], Device A 320a, which is an USB storage device without an embedded operating system, see Mariappan, paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; also see Mariappan, Fig. 5, remote device 520 is a not embedded with an operating system) operational within a communication network (see Mariappan, Fig. 3A, storage system 300a) with plurality of non-OS embedded devices (see Mariappan, Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047]-[0048], Device A 320a and Device B 320b, which are USB storage devices without an embedded operating system, see paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; also see Bachar, col. 1, lines 34-41 and the rejection of claim 16 set forth above, which concludes that the user devices 310 in Mariappan maybe non-OS embedded IoT devices), the non-OS embedded device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a new data chunk;
a transmitter configured to transmit messages to the plurality of non-OS embedded devices (because Mariappan’s Device A 320a is a networked storage device, it must have components for receiving and transmitting data; also see Mariappan, Fig. 2 for network interface 226 in remote device 220);
at least one memory (see Mariappan, Fig. 3A, storage 321a); and
wherein the at least one memory is configured to comprise:
a first portion of memory reserved for the non-OS embedded device where the at least one memory resides (see Mariappan, Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047], private access partition 323a restricted to device A 320a); and
a second portion of memory reserved and available for at least one other non-OS embedded device from the plurality of non-OS embedded devices within the communication network to use (see Mariappan, Fig. 3A and paragraph [0047], shared access partition 323a that’s accessible with user device 310, also see Bachar, col. 1, lines 34-41 and the rejection of similar limitation in claim 16 set forth above).
Mariappan further teaches:
a signal processor operably coupled to the receiver, the transmitter and the at least one memory (see Mariappan, Fig. 2 and 5, control circuitry 222/522, which is coupled to the data store 224/524 and network interface 226),
Mariappan in view of Bachar do not specifically teach:
The signal processor is configured to determine whether the at least one memory has memory capacity to store the received new data chunk.
However, determining whether a storage device has enough capacity to store data is one of the basic functions in any storage device that functions properly, so that the requester of write data may determine how to handle the lack of capacity instead of blindly assuming data has been successfully written. Wang teaches a similar storage device wherein a storage controller determines whether there is sufficient capacity to store the data of a write access and handles the situation when there is insufficient capacity (see Wang, paragraphs [0067] and [0086]). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine this feature in Wang with the control circuitry in Mariappan to ensure the proper operations in Mariappan’s storage devices in the event of insufficient storage capacity.
Dependent Claims:
Per claim 32, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang further teach: the at least one memory comprises read only memory, ROM, a network shared ROM, a random access memory, RAM, a network shared RAM, at least one flash memory and at least one network shared flash (see Mariappan, paragraph [0038] and the instant claim’s rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 set forth above).
Per claim 17, the rejection of claim 31 set forth above already concludes that Mariappan further in view of Bachar and Wang teach the following limitations: a first non-OS embedded device of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices comprises a first receiver configured to receive a data chunk; a first transmitter; and a signal processor operably coupled to the first receiver, the first transmitter and the at least one memory, and configured to determine whether the at least one memory has memory capacity to store the received data chunk (see the rejection of claim 31 set forth above). Wang further teaches and in response to the at least one memory not having memory capacity to store the received data chunk, the first signal processor and first transmitter are configured to send a storage request message to at least one of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices (see Wang, paragraphs [0067] and [0086]; if the storage capacity of the SSD 207 is insufficient, copy some sets of data to the HDD 6. Note that Wang’s HDD 6 may be incorporated into Mariappan’s Device A 320a as extended storage, and it may also be viewed as a non-OS embedded device due to the fact that it is a hard drive disk).
Per claim 34, the claim is the method claim corresponding to claim 17. As such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 18, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang further teach:
the storage request message comprises at least one of: a write_data_request command (see Wang, paragraphs [0067] and [0086], copying some sets of data to the HDD 6 requires a write_data_request command); a broadcast storage request message; a multicast storage request message; a storage request message that is directly sent to an identified one of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices indicated by a data mapping algorithm employed by the signal processor.
Per claim 35, the claim is the method claim corresponding to claim 18. As such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 19, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang further teach: the storage request message comprises the write_data_request command and the data chunk is identified by a data chunk identifier, file_id (see Mariappan, paragraphs [0050] and [0058], data are accessed as files), chunk_id (this is construed as the address that must be specified when writing data), and a data file_length (see Wang, paragraph [0079]-[0080] for “size of the write-target data”, also note that the size of the write data must be known to determine whether a storage device has sufficient capacity).
Per claim 20, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang further teach: the first signal processor is configured to divide the received data chunk into fixed-size parsed data chunks and the storage request message is configured to include at least a portion of the fixed-size parsed data chunks, wherein the at least one of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices is configured to store the at least a portion of the fixed size parsed data chunks for use by the first non-OS embedded device (see Wang, paragraph [0086], the data are copied from SSD 207 to HDD 6 in sets of data, which can be construed as dividing data chunks into fixed-size parsed data chunks; the copying is construed as the claimed storage request message, hence it includes the sets of data; and the sets of data are stored in the HDD 6 for use by Mariappan’s Device A 320a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 21, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang fail to teach or render obvious: a second non-OS embedded device is the at least one of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices and comprises: a second receiver configured to receive the storage request message from the first non-OS embedded device, at least one memory operably coupled to the second receiver; and a second signal processor operably coupled to the second receiver and the at least one memory and configured to determine that the at least one memory has available memory capacity to store the received data chunk, and the at least one memory is configured to store the received data chunk in response thereto. The claimed “the at least one of the plurality of non-OS embedded devices” has been mapped to Wang’s HDD 6 in the rejection of claim 17, and there is in sufficient reason to include the claimed “a second receiver”, “at least one memory”, and “a second signal processor” along with their functionalities into Wang’s HDD 6.
Claims 22-23 are dependent on claim 21 and as such are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Per claim 24, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang fail to teach or render obvious: in response to the data chunk being identified as a high priority data chunk, the plurality of non-OS embedded devices is configured to store the same data chunk. Although identifying a data chunk as high priority is common practice in the art, the claimed plurality of non-OS embedded devices have been mapped to Mariappan’s Device A 320a and Device B 320b. Device A 320a and Device B 320b are separate storage devices each with a private reserved storage area and an area to be shared with a specific user device, as such there is insufficient reason to store the data chunk that is to be written to Wang’s HDD 6 to Mariappan’s Device A 320a and Device B 320b.
Per claim 25, Mariappan in view of Bachar and Wang fail to teach or render obvious: the storage request message comprises an over-the-air, OTA, system update data file transfer that is sent to a plurality of different non-OS embedded devices in the communication network, wherein the data file transfer is divided into multiple data chunks and respective data chunks of the multiple data chunks are stored temporarily or permanently on a different plurality of non-OS embedded devices across the communication network. The claimed storage request message is mapped to Wang’s copying of data sets from SSD 207 to HDD 6, and the claimed plurality of non-OS embedded devices have been mapped to Mariappan’s Device A 320a and Device B 320b. Device A 320a and Device B 320b are separate storage devices each with a private reserved storage area and an area to be shared with a specific user device, as such there is insufficient reason to perform an over-the-air update and store respective data sets to be copied to Wang’s HDD 6 into Mariappan’s Device A 320a and Device B 320b.
Claims 26-28 are dependent on claim 25 and as such are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Per claim 29, the claim is allowable due to its assumed dependence on claim 21 instead of claim 16 (see the rejection of the instant claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth above). Without this assumption the claim would not be comprehensible as there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the signal processor and transmitter”, “the first non-OS embedded device” and “the second non-OS embedded device”. If the claim is amended in any fashion without changing its dependency to claim 21, this indication of allowable subject matter may be withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN X GU whose telephone number is (571)272-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Vo can be reached on 571-272-3642. 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).
/SHAWN X GU/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2138
21 February 2026