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 .
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 – 9 and 19 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagemann et al. (US Pat. No. 9317721), hereinafter referred to as Plagemann in view Augustin et al. (US Pat. No. 7222201), hereinafter referred to as Augustin.
As to claim 1, Plagemann discloses a method for performing an operation in relation to a USB device (USB-connected camera sensor 600 coupled to host device, camera operation flow, Fig. 6), the method comprising configuring a USB interface (the camera may be connected to the device by, for example, USB, Col. 11, Lines 10 - 11) in a USB controller (the host controller, Col. 13, line 40) so as to open one or more pipes between the USB controller and one or more corresponding USB endpoints of a USB device (USB controller managing message pipe and stream pipe between host and sensor endpoints, camera 600, Fig. 6) according to a required USB endpoint configuration of the USB device that is required for performing an operation in relation to the USB device (USB controller managing message pipe and stream pipe between host and sensor endpoints, camera 600, USB connection, pipes described at element 600 with controller-endpoint pipes, Fig. 6), performing the operation in relation to the USB device (sensor data transfer and control operation using stream pipe for camera data 641/651 and message pipe for status control, privacy module 671 controlling operation, Fig. 6), and unconfiguring (unconfiguring via, e.g. a pipe between the host controller and the sensor may be opened or closed, Col. 13, Lines 39 - 40) the configured USB interface in the USB controller so as to close the one or more pipes between the USB controller and the one or more corresponding USB endpoints of the USB device (a web camera may have a microphone and a camera that utilize separate stream pipes. Each pipe may be individually controlled. Addressing endpoints, Col. 13, Lines 39 - 46).
Augustin discloses, what Plagemann lacks, wherein the required USB endpoint configuration is determined based on a required operation (logical endpoint request for function, EP CFG 54, Fig. 2; host request for application pipe, USB device controller 14, Fig. 1); and
represents a minimum endpoint configuration (limited physical endpoints supporting many functions, physical endpoints A–C, Fig. 2; dynamic re-assignment, Fig. 3A/3B) e.g. efficiency Considerations; Depending on the number of virtual endpoints and the host-controller requirements, firmware may need to prioritize virtual endpoint re-assignment, col. 8, lines 37 - 40
.
Plagemann and Augustin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely USB communication systems that manage USB endpoints and pipes between a host or controller and a USB device in order to support device operations and applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Plagemann and Augustin before him or her, to modify the USB pipe and endpoint configuration control of Plagemann to include the operation-driven, minimal endpoint assignment of Augustin.
The suggestion and motivation for doing so would have been to reduce unnecessary reservation of USB endpoint resources, improve efficiency, and allow a single USB controller or device to support multiple operations or applications without requiring a full endpoint configuration for each, as taught by Augustin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Augustin with Plagemann to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 2, Plagemann discloses configuring the USB interface in the USB controller so as to open one or more pipes between the USB controller (host computing device USB interface, Fig. 6) and the USB device in response to communication between the USB device (camera device 600, Fig. 6) and the USB controller, including in response to detecting attachment or connection of the USB device (USB pipe opened upon device communication, camera device 600 and host interface, Fig. 6).
As to claim 3, Plagemann discloses receiving information relating to the USB device and/or receiving information relating to the operation to be performed in relation to the USB device (device status and control information exchanged via message pipe, message pipe communication, Fig. 6).
As to claim 4, Plagemann discloses determining the required endpoint configuration of the USB device based at least in part on the received information relating to the USB device and/or the received information relating to the operation to be performed (selection between message pipe and stream pipe based on operational needs, Fig. 6).
As to claim 5, Augustin discloses wherein the required endpoint configuration of the USB device comprises the minimum number of USB endpoints of the USB device required to perform the operation (limited physical endpoints dynamically assigned to logical endpoints, physical endpoints A–C, Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Augustin discloses determining the minimum number of USB endpoints of the USB device required to perform the operation based at least in part on the received information relating to the USB device (received endpoint request 54 information relating to the USB device, Fig. 2) and/or the received information relating to the operation (endpoint assignment driven by application or function request, logical endpoint mapping, Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Plagemann discloses the USB controller configured for communication with a computing resource including a processing resource (processing resource 24, Fig. 1) and a memory storing an OS (memory storing an OS 27, Fig. 1) and a computer program which, when executed, causes the processing resource to perform the method (host processing system with software control, processing unit and memory, Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, Plagemann discloses wherein the USB controller is connected to the computing resource (USB interface coupling host system to device, Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Plagemann discloses wherein the computer program comprises dedicated software or an application (device management software controlling USB communication, Fig. 1).
As to claim 19, Plagemann discloses wherein the operation comprises a diagnostic operation (status monitoring and device state determination, Fig. 6).
As to claim 20, Plagemann discloses performing the diagnostic operation to the USB device (device status evaluation via message pipe, Fig. 6).
As to claim 21, Augustin discloses configuring USB interfaces to open pipes between a USB controller and a plurality of USB devices according to required endpoint configurations, performing operations, and unconfiguring afterward (multiple logical endpoints mapped onto limited physical endpoints supporting multiple functions, Figs. 1–3).
As to claim 22, Plagemann discloses wherein each USB device comprises a mobile USB device including a mobile phone, tablet, or portable computing device (portable USB-connected device implementation, Fig. 6).
Claims 23 and 24 recite the corresponding limitation of claims 1 and 2. Therefore, they are rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plagemann et al. (US Pat. No. 9317721), hereinafter referred to as Plagemann in view Augustin et al. (US Pat. No. 7222201), hereinafter referred to as Augustin and in further view KIM et al. (US Pub. No. 20100180283), hereinafter referred to Kim.
As to claim 12, Kim discloses, what the modified system of Plagemann lacks, wherein the OS of the computing resource comprises a Linux OS (a Linux OS, para. 0003).
Plagemann, Augustin and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely host-side USB communication and control systems for managing USB devices using operating-system-level software and drivers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Plagemann, Augustin and Kim before him or her, to modify the host-side USB control software and endpoint configuration mechanism of Plagemann to include the Linux operating system–based USB driver and kernel resource management environment of Kim.
The suggestion and motivation for doing so would have been to implement the software-controlled opening, closing, and management of USB pipes and endpoints taught by Plagemann using a well-known, widely deployed Linux USB software stack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim with Plagemann and Augustin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11 and 13 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta et al. (US Pub. No. 20180181364) Systems and methods for using distributed Universal Serial Bus (USB) host drivers are disclosed. In one aspect, USB packet processing that was historically done on an application processor is moved to a distributed USB driver running in parallel on a low-power processor such as a digital signal processor (DSP).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUANITO C BORROMEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1720. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henry Tsai can be reached on 5712724176. 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.
/J.C.B/ Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184