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
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 of this title, 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(s) 1, 5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SnakeCHTW et al. (Event ID 1001 - Microsoft Community) in view of Radack et al. (US 10088843 B1).
SnakeCHTW discloses:
1. An apparatus for resetting information about execution of application software provided in a multi-core processor-based avionics computer device, the apparatus comprising:
a computation board provided with a plurality of pieces of application software, configured to generate state information including information about a fault in application software or hardware, and based on a multi-core processor in which the plurality of pieces of application software are distributed for each core and operated; and (p 1: Log Name: Application; Windows Error Reporting; Event ID: 1001; Computer)
a system control board configured to determine the fault in application software or hardware of the computation board during ongoing operation based on the state information received from the computation board and to reset information about execution of application software based on information about a fault in application software or hardware of the computation board, (p 1: Log Name: Application; Windows Error Reporting; Event ID: 1001; It almost always requires a force restart; p 3: so I had to restart the computer to solve that issue.)
wherein the system control board is configured to:
determine a type and a level of the fault to be divided into when a minor fault (p 1: Level: Information) or a major fault occurs for a unit of application software (p 1: the display drivers have stopped responding) and when a minor fault (p 1: Level: Information) or a major fault occurs for a unit of computation board hardware (p 4: A problem with your hardware caused Windows to stop working correctly) based on the state information received from the computation board (p 1: Event ID 1001), and [examiner’s note: Event ID 1001 is at Information level in Windows logs.]
change the information about execution of application software or a computation board to execute application software depending on a minor fault or a major fault for the unit of application software and a minor fault or a major fault for the unit of computation board hardware by transmitting instruction regarding a fault response measure corresponding to the determination the type and the level of the fault (p 1: Level: Information) to restart (p 1: It almost always requires a force restart; p 3: so I had to restart the computer to solve that issue.) [examiner’s note: restarting the computer solved the issue of Windows Error Reporting for Application.]
wherein restarting fault-occurring application software when the minor fault occurs for the unit of the application software. (p 1: Level: Information; It almost always requires a force restart; p 3: so I had to restart the computer to solve that issue.) [examiner’s note: Event ID 1001 is at Information level in Windows logs.]
However, SnakeCHTW does not explicitly disclose, while Radack teaches:
in the multi-core processor-based avionics computer device (col 10, ln 25-28; col 11, ln 21-22)
by transmitting instruction regarding a fault response measure corresponding to the determination the type of the fault to one of a restart procedure management module (col 1, ln 24-25: warm start (e.g., a system restart due to an operator reset, a restart following a power glitch), a software reconfiguration procedure management module and a board reconfiguration procedure management module
wherein the restart procedure management module restarts (col 1, ln 24-25: warm start (e.g., a system restart due to an operator reset, a restart following a power glitch)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine restarting the faulty/event computer of SnakeCHTW with a triggering event of system reset of Radack. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to overcome the difficulty to execute the number and computational complexity of electronic applications required for electronic systems. (Radack: col 1, ln 25-35)
9. A computer program stored in a recording medium for executing the method of any one of claims 5, 7, or 8 using a computing device. (p 1)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the apparatus of claim(s) 1, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SnakeCHTW et al. (Event ID 1001 - Microsoft Community) in view of Radack et al. (US 10088843 B1), and further in view of Davies (US20050246568A1).
SnakeCHTW discloses:
3. The apparatus of claim 1,
However, SnakeCHTW does not explicitly disclose, while Davies teaches:
wherein the system control board is configured to operate application software in another computation board provided with application software identical to fault-occurring application software when a major fault occurs for the unit of application software. (par 189, 194, 201; fig 26: 402A, 402B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine restarting the faulty computer of SnakeCHTW with resetting the failed server of Davies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid overloading one user’s computer. (Davies: par 7)
4. The apparatus of claim 1,
However, SnakeCHTW does not explicitly disclose, while Davies teaches:
wherein the system control board is configured to operate application software in another computation board provided with every application software operated in a fault-occurring computation board when a major fault occurs for the unit of computation board hardware. (par 189, 194, 201; fig 26: 402A, 402B)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the apparatus of claim(s) 3-4, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection under 35 USC 103, the Remarks state, “However, SnakeCHTW does not teach or fairly suggest a combination of a computation board and a system control board in a multi-core processor-based avionics computer device.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. SnakeCHTW discloses a computation board and a system control board in a processor-based computer device, while Radack teaches a multi-core processor-based avionics computer device in col 10, ln 25-28; col 11, ln 21-22.
The Remarks state, “Moreover, SnakeCHTW which is related to Windows Event ID 1001, does not disclose the feature of automatically detecting a defect through information exchange between the computing board and system control board. In other words, the restart disclosed on pages 1 and 3 of SnakeCHTW is merely a manual restart when an error is detected during the execution of a widely known program.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. SnakeCHTW discloses a computer automatically detects a defect on p 1: Log Name: Application; Windows Error Reporting; Event ID: 1001. In addition, generic computer components, like a computing board and a system control board, connect and work together inside a computer case. Furthermore, Radack teaches, in col 1, ln 24-25, warm start operation following an error.
The Remarks state, “Contrary to the claimed embodiments, Radack et al. does not describe or fairly suggest determining the type and level of an error and to change the execution information of the application software or the computing board when a minor or major error occurs in a unit of application software or a unit of computing board hardware during operation.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. SnakeCHTW discloses determine a type and a level of the fault on p 1: Level: Information; Windows Error Reporting; Event ID: 1001. In addition, generic computer components, like computing board hardware and application software, connect and work together inside a computer case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113