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 .
About the Invention
The Amendment received May 5, 2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-20 have been presented and pending in the application.
Examiner notes that the claims 1, 3-10 & 16 now appear to recite different scope of inventions/limitations, not earlier presented; therefore, the examiner applies following rejection.
Response to Arguments
As for the double patenting rejections applied on claims 1-20, the examiner notes that the applicant AGREED with the examiner’s double patenting rejection (i.e., no disagreement and/or arguments have been presented by the applicant). More specifically, the amended claims 2, 11-15 & 17-20 recite substantially identical to the previous claims 1, 3-10, 12-16 & 18-20.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10 & 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the above reasons, the examiner issues a new ground of rejection as follows.
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 1-20 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.
In Claim 1;
In line 5, the phrase “host interface configured to be connected to a local host system” is vague and indefinite from the context of the claimed invention (i.e., it is unstated and unclear as to whether/how the “local host system” interconnected to the “host interface”, “network”, “network interface”, “device” and/or “non-volatile memory cells”); in addition, the above phrase is not utilized by the claimed invention; therefore, the clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined by the claimed invention (i.e., the description of the specification appears to describe different invention). The claim 1 appears to be incomplete & the clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention appears to be vague and indefinite.
As best understood by the examiner from the descriptions of the specification, the claimed “host interface” & “local host system” are part of the gist of the claimed invention; however, since the claim 1 does not recite the gist of the present invention, the examiner’s interpretation for determining the proper metes and bounds of the claimed/present invention is vague, indefinite & unclear.
In Claim 3;
In line 2, the phrase “bulk data received in the network interface” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis.
In claims 10 & 16;
The unclarities of the claim 1 are similarly applied, due to the similarly between the respective claims.
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, 3-10 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogle (US 2006/00227141 A1).
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of the Hogle reference for this rejection; hence, the examiner advises the applicant to carefully consider the entire teachings to better understand the examiner’s position and the interpretations applied to the claimed invention. For the following teaching discussions of well-known and/or common practice teachings, the examiner relies on teachings from US Patent Database searches as one having ordinary skill in the art.
The Hogle reference teaches, when the examiner applies Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, functionally equivalent limitations of the claimed invention as follows:
CLAIMS 1, 3-10 & 16
Hogle REF. Teachings (emphasis underlined)
1.(Currently Amended) A device, comprising:
System of Fig 1 and/or 5 with accompanying description
non-volatile memory cells configured to provide a storage space of the device;
Par 18, “rendering devices may have memory or storage capacity in excess of a typical personal computer, the processing resources are usually dedicated to special purpose tasks…RAM”
a network interface operable to communicate on a computer network and to receive messages to access the storage space; and
Par 23, “host may rely on a “framework” that issues messages for a “renderer” of a rendering device”; par 27” upon receipt via a network”; par 49, “high-performance messaging model to an instance of the renderer 530 running on the rendering device 506 (examiner notes that the network communication between the Host & the Rendering Device)
a host interface configured to be connected to a local host system
Fig 1, connection between (120)/(134) and (132), (examiner nots that the host interface is not utilized or perform any functions in the claimed invention & the having host interface with host system is well-known and commonly practiced in the industry)
3.(Original) The device of claim 1, further comprising: circuits configured to perform computations to generate derived data from bulk data received in the network interface and store at least the derived data into the storage space.
Obvious from the teachings of Par 48, “context object that represents a logical computation…bulk data transfer” (Examiner notes that the claimed limitation is also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
4.(Original) The device of claim 3, wherein the network interface is configured to communicate, over a local area network, to receive the bulk data.
Obvious from the teachings of Par 23, “host may rely on a “framework” that issues messages for a “renderer” of a rendering device”; par 27” upon receipt via a network”; Par 48, “context object that represents a logical computation…bulk data transfer” (examiner notes that the network communication performed between the Host & Rendering Device & the examiner further notes that the claimed limitation is also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
5.(Original) The device of claim 3, wherein the network interface is further configured to communicate with a remote server to provide the derived data from the storage space to the remote server.
Obvious from the teachings of Par 48, “data buffer object that represents bulk data on a remote node” (Examiner notes that the claimed limitation is also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
6.(Original) The device of claim 5, wherein the device is configured to generate an alert to the remote server in response to the derived data satisfying a predetermined condition.
Obvious from the teachings of Par 48, “data buffer callback object for reporting one the status of bulk data transfers” (Examiner notes that the claimed limitation is also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
7.(Original) The device of claim 3, wherein the bulk data includes image data; and the derived data includes an identification of a feature captured in the image data, or a statistical report, or a combination thereof.
Obvious from the teachings of Par 51, “renderer typically includes…API for defining 2D and 3D graphic images (e.g., for use in a graphics layer 538) that may provide some degree of comparability across hardware and operating system sand specify a set of messages…” (Examiner notes that the claimed limitation is also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
8.(Original) The device of claim 3, wherein the circuits include a computational storage processor configurable by the local host system to perform a computational storage function in generating the derived data from the bulk data.
Obvious from the teachings of Par 23, “host may rely on a “framework” that issues messages for a “renderer” of a rendering device”; par 27” upon receipt via a network”; Par 48, “context object that represents a logical computation…bulk data transfer” (examiner notes that the network communication transferring bulk data between the Host & Rendering Device. and further notes that the claimed limitation is also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
9.(Original) The device of claim 3, wherein the device is configured to store the derived data as a replacement of the bulk data in the storage space.
Not expressly taught, but this is obvious functions of figure 1 & 5 (examiner notes that storing a specific type of data is well-known practiced in the industry & also well-known and commonly practiced in the art)
10. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising: providing, via non-volatile memory cells configured in a device, a storage space of the device; receiving, via a network interface configured in the device and operable to communicate on a computer network, messages to access the storage space; and providing, via a host interface configured in the device and connected to a local host system, a first portion of the messages received in the network interface to the local host system to control accessing to the storage space.
Teachings of the claim 1 are similarly applied.
16. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a device, cause the device to perform a method, comprising: receiving, via a network interface configured in the device, messages to access a storage space provided via non-volatile memory cells configured in the device; and providing, via a host interface configured in the device and connected to a local host system, a first portion of the messages received in the network interface to the local host system to control accessing to the storage space.
Teachings of the claim 1 are similarly applied.
As best understood by the examiner, due to the numerous unclarities & indefiniteness of the claimed invention, the Hogle reference does not expressly or identically labels “host interface” or “local host system”; however, having or adding such not expressly or not identically labeled “host interface”/”local host system” is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, because since having an extra interface can be beneficial for proving additional connections without necessarily utilized by a designing system (i.e., like the claimed system), one skill in the art can easily add such interface; in addition, having such interface/local system is also well-known and commonly known practiced in the art of data processing/communication system (i.e., see the prior art of record for the support of well-known teachings). Therefore, since the Hogle reference teaches the functionally equivalent teachings of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious at the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to come up with the claimed invention from the teachings of the Hogle reference for the detailed teachings and reasons discussed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,809,361 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combinations of the claimed invention of the (361) patent teaches substantially/functionally equivalent limitations of the presently claimed “message” handling/processing function/operation plus more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,775,225 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combinations of the claimed invention of the (225) patent teaches substantially/functionally equivalent limitations of the presently claimed “message” handling/processing function/operation plus more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,379,867 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combinations of the claimed invention of the (867) patent teaches substantially/functionally equivalent limitations of the presently claimed “message” handling/processing function/operation plus more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,945 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combinations of the claimed invention of the (945) patent teaches substantially/functionally equivalent limitations of the presently claimed “message” handling/processing function/operation plus more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,947,834 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combinations of the claimed invention of the (834) patent teaches substantially/functionally equivalent limitations of the presently claimed “message” handling/processing function/operation plus more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,827 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combinations of the claimed invention of the (827) patent teaches substantially/functionally equivalent limitations of the presently claimed “message” handling/processing function/operation plus more.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4159. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 PM.
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, IDRISS N ALROBAYE can be reached on 571-270-1023. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights