DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Application
2. This office action is in response to the Application filed on 01/24/2025.
3. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15
Step 1: See MPEP 2106.03 II. Eligibility step 1.
Claim 1 and 15 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category.
Claim 8 is directed to an embedded system, comprising: a storage device and a controller. This is a statutory category (machine).
However, the claim must be analyzed under the two-step framework set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs to determine whether it is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 2A - Prong one: Regarding Eligibility step 2A. See MPEP 2106.04.11.
Next the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (similarly, claims 8 and 15) comprising:
Periodically obtaining timestamps of files
Determining which timestamps are later than a previous check
Outputting newer files to a file list
Continuing periodic checking
Obtaining statistics of expected writing
Using a second time interval longer than a first
Claim 8 additionally recites a computer configured to perform above operations.
These operations amount to: Collecting data (timestamps), Comparing data, Classifying data (newer files), Generating a list, Performing statistical analysis, and reporting results.
Claim 15 recites a method additionally comprising:
Periodically obtaining a checksum of raw data
Determining whether the checksum has changed
Conditionally obtaining timestamps
Comparing timestamps to prior timestamps
Thus, claim 15, as a whole, recites: Collecting data (timestamps), Comparing data, Classifying data (newer files), Generating a list, Performing statistical analysis, and reporting results. Claim 15 additionally recites Collecting data (checksums and timestamps) and Applying conditional logic.
These steps constitute:
Data collection
Data analysis
Information processing
Statistical evaluation
Mathematical operations (checksum calculation and statistical evaluation)
Mental process analogs (comparing and classifying information)
Such concepts fall within the category of abstract ideas, specifically:
Mental processes (evaluating and comparing information)
Mathematical concepts (statistics generation, checksum calculation and statistical evaluation)
Certain methods of organizing and analyzing information
Accordingly, Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea. The inclusion of checksum comparison in claim 15 does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas, as computing and comparing hash values is a mathematical operation.
Step 2A - Prong two: whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application
The additional elements recited in Claim 1 include:
A storage device
Periodic checking at defined time intervals
Obtaining file timestamps
Generating a file list
These elements are performed using generic computer functionality.
The claim does not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or storage device
Improve flash memory wear leveling
Modify file system structure
Improve data access speed
Improve memory architecture
Recite a specific technological solution
Rather, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using conventional computer operations.
The claim therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim 8 recites:
A storage device storing firmware/program/config data
A controller loading firmware and performing operations
However:
The storage device is generic.
The controller is generic.
The controller merely executes routine monitoring and data analysis functions.
The claim does not:
Improve computer functionality
Improve storage performance
Improve firmware loading
Modify device operation
Instead, it applies the abstract idea on generic computer hardware.
Under USPTO guidance, simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate it into a practical application. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in Claim 15 include:
A storage device
A partition of the storage device
Periodic time intervals
However:
The storage device is recited generically.
The partition is recited generically.
The claim does not recite a specific storage architecture.
The claim does not improve flash memory performance.
The claim does not improve file system structure.
The claim does not modify controller-level operation.
The claim merely applies the abstract idea using conventional computer components and file system operations.
The use of two time intervals does not amount to a technological improvement; it merely structures the timing of the data analysis.
The checksum gating step also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is itself a mathematical comparison used to decide whether further data collection should occur.
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: whether the claim recites significantly more
The additional elements in claim 1, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to:
Generic computer implementation
Routine data monitoring
Conventional file system operations
Conventional statistical evaluation
There is no indication that:
The intervals are unconventional
The timestamp comparison is technically novel
The file list generation is technologically improved
The statistical calculation is non-conventional
The claim merely instructs applying the abstract idea using a generic storage device. Under Alice, generic computer implementation of an abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements in claim 8 are:
A storage device
A controller
Firmware loading capability
These are conventional components of any embedded system.
There is no indication that:
The controller architecture is unconventional
The periodic intervals are technically novel
The statistical method is unconventional
The system modifies hardware behavior
The claim merely instructs a generic controller to execute abstract data-processing steps. Under Alice, generic computer implementation of an abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements in claim 15, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to:
Generic storage monitoring
Routine checksum calculation
Conventional timestamp comparison
Conventional statistical aggregation
There is no indication that:
The checksum algorithm is unconventional
The interval structure is technologically improved
The statistical model is non-conventional
The storage device is modified or improved
The claim merely instructs applying the abstract idea using conventional computer operations. Under Alice, generic implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Claim 15 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea — namely, collecting, comparing, and statistically analyzing file timestamp information — and does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims
Claims 2–7, 9-14, and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory CategoryClaims 2–7, 9-14, and 16–19 are directed to statutory categories (method and machine). The claims are therefore analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework.
Step 2A – Prong One (Judicial Exception)The dependent claims recite additional limitations including: obtaining a checksum of raw data; determining whether the checksum has changed; comparing raw data currently obtained with previously obtained raw data; obtaining a number of changed file paths; determining whether files were written abnormally or unexpectedly; excluding expected writes from a write count; shortening a time interval based on comparison results; and specifying that the storage device is flash memory.
These limitations constitute:(1) data collection (checksums, timestamps, file paths);(2) data comparison (raw data comparison, timestamp comparison);(3) classification (expected vs. unexpected writing);(4) mathematical operations (checksum generation, counting, statistical aggregation); and(5) conditional logic (if change detected, perform further checking; adjust interval).
Such operations fall within the abstract idea categories of mental processes and mathematical concepts. Courts have consistently held that collecting, analyzing, and reporting data, even in a technological environment, constitutes an abstract idea.
The dependent claims therefore recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Practical Application)The additional elements in the dependent claims include: a storage device; a partition of the storage device; flash memory; firmware; a controller; and periodic time intervals.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and represent generic computer components performing conventional data processing operations. The claims do not:– improve storage device architecture;– improve flash memory endurance;– improve file system structure;– improve controller hardware functionality;– modify flash translation layer behavior;– or provide a specific technological improvement to computer performance.
The flash memory limitation merely limits the environment in which the abstract idea is applied and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological field does not confer eligibility.
The checksum gating and adaptive interval limitations likewise implement conditional data processing logic and do not improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly MoreThe additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to conventional computer implementation of data monitoring and analysis techniques. Checksum calculation, timestamp comparison, file list generation, counting file paths, statistical evaluation, and adjusting monitoring intervals are routine computer operations.
There is no indication that:– the checksum algorithm is unconventional;– the statistical model is non-conventional;– the adaptive interval logic improves computer functionality;– the flash memory recitation changes system architecture.
The claims merely instruct generic computer components to perform abstract data-processing operations.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
ConclusionClaims 2–7, 9-14, and 16–19 are directed to abstract ideas implemented using generic computer components and do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
4. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (NPL: “The Design and Implementation of Tripwire: A File System Integrity Checker”, hereinafter Kim) in view of Malik et al. (US2009/0089604; hereinafter Malik).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, taking claim 1 as exemplary analysis, Kim teaches A method for estimating consumption of a storage device, comprising:
at every first time interval, periodically checking and obtaining timestamps of all files in the storage device (Kim, p.1, Abstract, Kim teaches Monitoring a designated set of files and directories on a regular (e.g., daily) basis. Storing file attributes including “time of last modification. Thus, Kim’s periodic regeneration and comparison of file attributes necessarily involves obtaining timestamps during each scheduled run)
during each check, performing the steps of: determining which timestamps of the currently obtained files which are later than the time of a previous check (Kim, p.2., Kim teaches regenerating file metadata and comparing against stored baseline database values, detecting changed files based on discrepancies between current and prior values; and Comparing modification times to determine whether files have changed inherently requires determining whether a current timestamp is later than a previously stored timestamp);
outputting the relevant information of all newer files in the currently obtained files to a file list, the newer files having timestamps later than the time of the previous check (Kim, p.2., §2, Kim teaches Reporting changed, added, or deleted files and generating discrepancy reports identifying file paths with changes.
The reporting mechanism constitutes outputting a list of changed files, which necessarily includes those with newer modification timestamps); and
Kim teaches continuing the periodic checking at regular execution (e.g., daily), Kim does not expressly teach continuing the periodic checking at a second time interval.
Malik teaches continuing the periodic checking at a second time interval (in Fig. 4, Malik teaches periodic sampling and accumulation of statistical usage data over defined intervals).
Kim teaches periodic file modification detection via timestamp comparison and generation of changed file lists. Malik teaches periodic sampling and accumulation of statistical usage data over defined intervals for reporting/analysis cycle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Kim’s detected file modification events as the input data for statistical accumulation over time intervals as taught by Malik in order to estimate storage consumption or write activity, because both references relate to monitoring storage-related activity over time.
The combination of Kim and Malik further teaches obtaining statistics of expected writing to the storage device within the second time interval (Malik, Fig. 4, step 408, Continue to periodically update new energy data; Fig. 12, obtaining statistical information about storage-related activity over defined time intervals;
Kim, p.2, Tracking added, deleted, and changed files. Storing database entries reflecting file system state);
wherein the second time interval is longer than the first time interval (Malik teaches fixed periodic sampling and accumulation over time windows as shown in Fig. 4.
Because Kim teaches an interval for change detection and Malik teaches a longer aggregation interval for statistical accumulation, “the second time interval is longer than the first time interval” is a predictable integration of Kim’s monitoring with Malik’s statistical accumulation framework).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 9, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches wherein before checking and obtaining the timestamps of all files in the storage device, obtaining a checksum of raw data in a partition of the storage device first, and determining whether the checksum has changed; and further checking and obtaining the timestamps of all files in the storage device upon determining that the checksum has changed (Kim teaches: Storing file signatures (message digests/checksums) to detect modification(p. 2–4, §2.4 “File signature issues”), Efficiently detecting changes by storing a value calculated from file contents (p. 2, “Efficiently detecting changes…”), Comparing regenerated signatures against stored signatures to detect file alteration (Kim, p. 2)
“checksum of raw data” corresponds to Kim’s file signature/message digest.
Kim compares regenerated signatures to stored signatures to determine whether data has changed. Kim does not explicitly disclose performing checksum comparison before timestamp checking. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to:
Perform a checksum comparison first as a coarse change detector, and only proceed to further metadata or timestamp evaluation if checksum indicates change because hierarchical change detection reduces unnecessary processing and is a well-known optimization in filesystem monitoring).
Regarding independent claim 8, claim recites substantially the same limitation as in claim(s) 1 and 2, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth in the analysis in the claim(s) 1 and 2.
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 10, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches comparing the raw data currently obtained with the raw data previously obtained, and obtaining all file paths which have been changed (Kim teaches: Comparing regenerated signatures to stored signatures and Detecting changed, added, and deleted files (Kim, p.2)); and obtaining the number of file paths that have been changed (Kim teaches detects and reports changed file paths. Because the list of changed files inherently has a count, determining the number of changed file paths is an obvious step. Counting entries in a list of changed files would have been an obvious design choice. Furthermore, Kim necessarily generates a list of changed file paths. Counting those paths is trivial once the list exists).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 11, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches wherein the number of newer files corresponds to the write count of the storage device in each of the first time intervals; the method further comprising the steps of: checking the relevant information of all the newer files whose timestamps are later than the time of the previous check in the file list, and determining whether they are the files to be written expectedly; and for the files which are determined to have been written unexpectedly, excluding them from the total of the write count (Kim teaches: Filtering meaningful events(Kim, p.3–4, §2.2 Reporting Issues) and Avoiding reporting benign changes, corresponding to distinguishing expected vs unexpected file changes.
Malik teaches Accumulating activity metrics over intervals (Fig. 4)
Thus, combining Kim’s change detection and filtering with Malik’s interval-based statistical accumulation yields counting non-filtered file modifications as write activity metrics).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 12, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches wherein the number of newer files corresponds to the write count of the storage device in each of the first time intervals; the method further comprising the steps of: checking all the file paths that have been changed to determine whether they reflect expected writing actions; for the file paths not reflecting expected writing actions, excluding them from the total of the write count (Avoiding reporting benign changes, corresponding to distinguishing expected vs unexpected changes based on similar reasoning discussed in claim 4).
Regarding claim(s) 7, 14 and 19, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches wherein the storage device is flash memory (Note that Malik explicitly concerns storage device monitoring and Flash memory was well known long before the filing date.
Kim discloses monitoring files on UNIX systems stored on disk. It would have been obvious to apply the same monitoring technique to flash memory storage devices because flash memory is a known form of non-volatile storage).
Regarding claim(s) 17, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches checking the relevant information of all the newer files whose timestamps are later than the time of the previous check in the file list; and determining whether they are the files that have been written abnormally (unexpectedly) (Kim, p. 3–4, §2.2 “Reporting Issues”
Distinguishing between normal expected changes (e.g., log files) …Potentially suspicious changes …Configurable policy rules to determine significance
This is conceptually equivalent to: determining whether files have been written abnormally/unexpectedly. Because Kim detects changed files and filters expected vs meaningful changes, therefore determining abnormal writing is explicitly taught).
Regarding claim(s) 18, the combination of Kim and Malik further teaches comparing the raw data currently obtained with the raw data previously obtained, and obtaining all file paths which have been changed; checking all the file paths that have been changed to determine whether they reflect expected writing actions; and for the file paths not reflecting expected writing actions, detecting them as abnormal (unexpected) writing (
Kim teaches: Storing file signatures (message digests) and Recomputing and comparing them (p.2–4, §2.4). This is raw data comparison via signature.
Kim further teaches Avoiding reporting benign changes and Filtering based on policy (p.3–4)
This maps almost directly to: checking whether file paths reflect expected writing actions.
Kim further teaches Detect unauthorized or unexpected changes (Kim, p.1–2)
The phrase “abnormal writing” is functionally equivalent to “unauthorized or unexpected modification.”).
5. Claims 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (NPL: “The Design and Implementation of Tripwire: A File System Integrity Checker”, hereinafter Kim) in view of Malik et al. (US2009/0089604; hereinafter Malik), further in view of Hsiao et al. (US 2019/0303239; hereinafter Hsiao).
Regarding claim(s) 6, 13 and 16, Malik teaches determining whether a further operation should be performed based on threshold comparison ([0012], Figs. 8 & 9), Kim and Malik do not expressly teach performing checking operation in response to specific events.
Hsiao teaches Performing checking operation in response to specific events (Fig. 2).
Applying Hsiao’s conditional adjustment logic to Kim’s monitoring framework and Malik’s threshold comparison would make it obvious to adjust monitoring behavior when inconsistency is detected (e.g., checksum change without timestamp change), including shortening monitoring interval to increase responsiveness. Thus, the combination of Kim and Malik and Hsiao teaches wherein when determining that the checksum has changed but the timestamps of all the files currently obtained are not later than the time of the previous check, the first time interval is shortened.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY C CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9992. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 AM to 6 PM 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, 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/TRACY C CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138