Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 17, 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/965952 (reference application).
Applicant submitted that the Applicant is not ready to address the current rejection.
Applicant’s response is not fully responsive. A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. See MPEP 804.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 was 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 subject matter.
The amendment to claim 7 has addressed the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0099393 (“Li”).
Claims 5-6 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda et al. US Patent Publication No. 2015/0100745 ("Konda").
Applicant submitted that Konda does not disclose or suggest "wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time." Rather, Konda merely discloses a future time the command has to be executed.
In response, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. Claim 1 recites the condition, “when the timestamp based execution time is a past time” and does not require that the timestamp is a past time. The claimed invention may be practiced without requiring the timestamp to be a past time. Konda discloses a header field indicating a time for executing the command, which teaches, “header field of the information structure is configured to include an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time.”
The amendment to independent claim 21 changes scope of the invention since the claim did not require the limitation, “wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time.” The claim listing also lacked any claims that depended on claim 21. Therefore, the prior rejection has been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are made in this Office action. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant's amendment, and accordingly, this Office action is made Final.
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.
If both the application under examination and the reference application have the same patent term filing date, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until it is overcome. MPEP 801(1)(b)(ii)
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/965952 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are determined to be obvious in view of the reference application. See below.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A communication method at a receiving node of a communication system, comprising:
receiving a message including a header field of an information structure configured with one or more headers to control at least one of an execution of at least one command specified in the information structure or a delivery of a response to at least one of the execution of the at least one command or a receipt of the information structure.
wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time.
1. A communication method at a transmitting node of a communication system, comprising:
configuring a header field of an information structure with one or more headers to control at least one of an execution of at least one command specified in the information structure or a delivery of a response to at least one of the execution of the at least one command or a receipt of the information structure; and
transmitting a message including the header field.
5. The communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an header configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time.
The difference between claims of the applications is that claim 1 of the instant application is directed to receiving the message while claim 1 of reference application is directed to transmitting the message. However, the contents of the message (of the instant application) are disclosed by claim 1 of the reference application, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a message that is received at a node would have been transmitted by another node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implemented an invention directed to a node that transmitted the message that is received by the receiving node.
Claims 2-4, 6-21 of the instant application are unpatentable over claims 2-4, 6-21 of the reference application. The differences are obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reason provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1, 6, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0099393 (“Li”) in view of Konda et al. US Patent Publication No. 2015/0100745 (“Konda”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a communication method at a receiving node of a communication system, comprising:
receiving a message including a header field of an information structure configured with one or more headers to control at least one of an execution of at least one command specified in the information structure or a delivery of a response to at least one of the execution of the at least one command or a receipt of the information structure (para. [0051] data packet header 300 containing conditional commands. para. [0056] conditional instruction set contained in the conditional commands field(s) 552 may be encoded in any order as execution of conditional instructions may not be sensitive to order and may even occur in parallel. para. [0035] condition indicates an item that must be satisfy before the command is execute. para. [0036] conditions… state of the network device).
Li does not teach wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time.
Konda teaches a header field of an information structure configured to include an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time (para. [0037] commands. para. [0043] TI field 402 indicates that a command needs to be repeated at a given time interval. TI field 402 may be set to a value of `xx01b` if the time field 404 indicates the time at which the command has to be executed.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Konda’s disclosure of implementing a header field of an information structure configured to include an on timestamp execute header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Konda would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter for efficient execution of commands (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on timestamp discard header, wherein the on timestamp discard header is configured to include at least one field specifying an execution time at which the at least one command is to be executed, wherein the at least one command is configured to be executed at the execution time or to be discarded when the execution time is a past time.
Konda teaches a header field of an information structure configured to include an on timestamp discard header, wherein the on timestamp discard header is configured to include at least one field specifying an execution time at which the at least one command is to be executed, wherein the at least one command is configured to be executed at the execution time or to be discarded when the execution time is a past time (para. [0037] TI field 402 may be set to a value of `xx01b` if the time field 404 indicates the time at which the command has to be executed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Konda’s disclosure of implementing an on timestamp discard header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Konda would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter for efficient execution of commands (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a repeat header, wherein the repeat header is configured to control an automatic repetition of an execution of the at least one command, wherein the repeat header includes a count field indicating a number of times the at least one command is to be repeated.
Konda teaches a header field of an information is configured to include a repeat header, wherein the repeat header is configured to control an automatic repetition of an execution of the at least one command, wherein the repeat header includes a count field indicating a number of times the at least one command is to be repeated (para. [0043] TI field 402 indicates that a command needs to be repeated at a given time interval. para. [0044] UPIU header 400 may also include a field to indicate a number of times a particular command is to be repeated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Konda’s disclosure of implementing a repeat header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Konda would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter for efficient execution of commands (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Konda teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1. Li teaches wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on_command_start header, wherein the on_command_start header is configured to indicate that the at least one command is executed at a beginning of executing another command (para. [0056] conditional instruction set contained in the conditional commands field(s) 552 may be encoded in any order as execution of conditional instructions may not be sensitive to order and may even occur in parallel. para. [0035] condition indicates an item that must be satisfied before the command is execute. para. [0036] conditions… state of the network device).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Konda teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1. Li teaches, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a skip header, wherein the skip header is configured to indicate conditional command execution based on a status of a node (para. [0036] conditions… state of the network device. para. [0050] determine whether a condition in the conditional command is satisfied based on packet header data, network device 200 state, and/or based on associated parameters in the conditional command. upon determining that the condition is satisfied… execute the command).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Qian US Patent Publication No. 2009/0059834 (“Qian”).
Regarding claim 2, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, further comprising: transmitting a response message based on one of the one or more headers of the header field being configured to control the delivery of the response to the at least one of the execution of the at least one command or the receipt of the information structure.
Qian discloses transmitting a response message based on one of one or more headers of a header field being configured to control the delivery of the response to the at least one of the execution of the at least one command or the receipt of the information structure (para. [0004] length field in the first header instructing the receiver how long to wait before sending a response. messages directed to other receivers will have a header (PSDU) with fields indicating how long to wait (NAV) before sending a response to the message (MPDU) or messages (MPDUs) for that receiver). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Qian’s disclosure of transmitting the response message. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to receive responses, such as acknowledgments to commands, and Qian would have provided the capability to further schedule responses from nodes.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Weiny et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0182177 (“Weiny”).
Regarding claim 3, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a DELAY header, wherein the DELAY header is configured to include a time delay field specifying a time delay between command reception and command execution by a processing unit for performing a write operation at the storage device 104).
Weiny discloses a field of an information structure configured to include a DELAY header, wherein the DELAY header is configured to include a time delay field specifying a time delay between command reception and command execution by a processing unit (para. [0035] indicator field 444 of example packet format 400 may be a single bit field (e.g., bit 15) that indicates when set or asserted (e.g., it is 1) that a node receiving a packet in example packet format 400 is to delay execution of a command associated with the packet until a synchronized time is reached. timeStamp field 446… execute the reconfiguration command at the synchronized time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Weiny’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure configured to include a DELAY header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Weiny would have provided the capability for specifying additional parameters to control execution of the commands including the capability to synchronize execution of commands.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Hoang et al. US Patent Publication No. 2023/0281082 (“Hoang”).
Regarding claim 4, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a timeout header, wherein the timeout header is configured to identify a maximum time duration allowed between when the at least one command is queued for execution and when the at least one command is executed.
Hoang discloses a timeout field configured to identify a maximum time duration allowed between when at least one command is queued for execution and when the at least one command is executed (para. [0057] fields: command to be executed, a timeout value specifying how long to wait for the command to execute). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Hoang’s disclosure of implementing a timeout field. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hoang would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter to control execution of the commands, and it would have been beneficial to include a timeout value to prevent waiting of the command.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Liu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0360483 (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a request_timestamp header, wherein the request timestamp header is configured to specify whether the response to the at least one command is to include a timestamp indicating a time when the response was generated.
Liu discloses a field of an information structure is configured to include a request_timestamp header, wherein the request timestamp header is configured to specify whether the response to the at least one command is to include a timestamp indicating a time when the response was generated (para. [0125] a request field and/or element bitmap is included in a probe request data unit generated by a client station 25 to request certain fields/elements (such as a timestamp…) within a probe response frame (generated…). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Liu’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure is configured to include a request_timestamp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses that commands may have different parameters. Liu would have provided the capability to request certain fields/elements within a response and reduce the size of a response.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Godman et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0101062 (“Godman”).
Regarding claim 13, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include on_command_end header, wherein the on_command_end header is configured to indicate that the at least one command is executed at an end of executing another command.
Godman discloses a field of an information structure configured to include on_command_end header, wherein the on_command_end header is configured to indicate that the at least one command is executed at an end of executing another command (para. [0035] dependency field 220 may specify that a node in a distributed system execute one or more other commands to completion before executing the action defined by the function field 210. dependency field 220 may store a count of commands (for example, wait count) upon which the command should wait upon as well as a list of other commands that are awaiting completion of this command). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Godman’s disclosure of a field of an information structure configured to include on_command_end header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses conditions for specifying an order of commands to be executed and discloses that commands may have different conditions. Godman would have provided the capability to further specify dependency of commands, which would reduce latency (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on response_start header, wherein the on response_start header is configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a beginning of the response to the at least one command.
Goodman discloses a field of an information structure is configured to include an on response_start header, wherein the on response_start header is configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a beginning of the response to the at least one command (para. [0035] dependency field 220 specifies conditions (also referred to herein as "waiters") for executing the action defined by the function field 210. para. [0072] layout command may be a start command and the determination of where to store data may be done in conjunction with other commands such as the allocate command. para. [0073] rather than executing the commands 604, 606, 608, 610 serially, the distributed file system executes the commands 604, 606, 608, 610 as system resources and usable data becomes available). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Godman’s disclosure of a field of an information structure configured to include on_command_end header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses conditions for specifying an order of commands to be executed and discloses that commands may have different conditions. Godman would have provided the capability to further specify dependency of commands, which would reduce latency (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on_response_end header, wherein the on_response_end header is configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a conclusion of the response to the at least one command.
Godman discloses a field of an information structure is configured to include an on_response_end header, wherein the on_response_end header is configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a conclusion of the response to at least one command (para. [0035] dependency field 220 may specify that certain data should be available before the action defined by the function field 210 is executed. para. [0060] specification that one or more other commands in the transaction execute to completion or return a specified result. para. [0071] get data command). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Godman’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses conditions for specifying an order of commands to be executed and discloses that commands may have different conditions. Godman would have provided the capability to specify an addition parameter for specifying execution of the commands including the capability to define different dependencies, which would reduce latency (para. [0010]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Lee US Patent Publication No. 2022/0011749 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 19, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a no_response header, wherein the no_response header is configured to indicate that the response is to be omitted.
Lee discloses a field of an information structure configured to include a no_response header, wherein the no_response header is configured to indicate that the response is to be omitted (para. [0074] acknowledgment required field 620 is able to indicate if an acknowledgment message in response to the message is require). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Lee’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure configured to include a no_response header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lee would have provided the capability to further specify if a response, i.e., acknowledgement, is required, which may reduce traffic/processing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Konda and Tanaka et al. US Patent No. 6,150,953 (“Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 20, Li does not teach the communication method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include a cancel_command header, wherein the cancel_command header is configured to indicate to cancel a previously sent command.
Tanaka discloses a field of an information structure configured to include a cancel_command header, wherein the cancel_command header is configured to indicate to cancel a previously sent command (col. 11, lines 48-52. notify (cancel) command is a kind of notify command to request the target to discontinue the execution of the previous notify command. notify (cancel) command is formed by replacing `dummy` in the OPR field in the format of a notify command by `cancel`). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Tanaka’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure configured to include a cancel_command header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li discloses that commands may have different parameters, and Tanaka would have provided the capability to cancel commands, which would stop unnecessary processing (col.7, lines 45-53).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0099393 (“Li”) in view of Delgado et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0047989 (“Delgado”).
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a message including a header field of an information structure configured with one or more headers to control at least one of an execution of at least one command specified in the information structure or a delivery of a response to at least one of the execution of the at least one command or a receipt of the information structure (para. [0051] data packet header 300 containing conditional commands. para. [0056] conditional instruction set contained in the conditional commands field(s) 552 may be encoded in any order as execution of conditional instructions may not be sensitive to order and may even occur in parallel. para. [0035] condition indicates an item that must be satisfied before the command is execute. para. [0036] conditions… state of the network device).
Li does not teach wherein the header field of the information structure is configured to include an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time.
Delgado discloses an on timestamp execute field of an information structure configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time (para. [0072] time identifier can be a current time or it can be a recovery time, i.e., a prior point in time for which the data stored in that unit of storage is desired. para. [0076] I/O request, specifically, a time-based read command that can be sent by the host 34 to the storage management device 38. if the RelativeChk field is 0…; therefore, a 0 indicates that the time specified is a past time measured from the current time. para. [0077] Bytes 17-24 include the specified read time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li with Delgado’s disclosure such that header containing command fields, as disclosed by Li, further includes one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Delgado would have provided the capability to issue different types of commands including commands associated with a data storage system and enabling access of data at particular points in time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-11, 17-18 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action, is overcome, and the claims rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Examiner’s Note
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Zhu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0409856 discloses an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time (para. [0168] determine, based on the timestamp in the packet header, a time for executing the pause command. DDM may further decode the encoded pause command to obtain the pause command. determine, based on the timestamp in the packet header, a time for executing the volume-up command).
Matsui US Patent No. 6,028,539 discloses an on timestamp execute header, wherein the on timestamp execute header is configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time (col. 12, lines 49-53. command packet 302 is a deletion command requesting to delete object, and the time information included in the header section 302a indicates a time at which the deletion command should be executed).
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 Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights