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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a mental process in the limitations of “…generating a plurality of files…storing files… generating a plurality of directory entries respectively for the plurality of files… determining whether a first-type error has occurred in the directory table, and in response to determining that the first-type error …performing a first repairing procedure… in response to determining that the first-type error has not occurred… determining whether a second-type error has occurred …and performing a second repairing procedure…”. These limitations are corresponding to generate data and perform a repair process in response to a series of determinations steps, which could be done mentally with data evaluations based on gathered information. Mental process is directed to one of the abstract ideas groups as set forth by Prong One in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Th claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements (e.g. files, uninform file size, directory, file name, directory entries) are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims.
Hence the claims do not include additional elements or the combination of the elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate the judicial exception into practical application according to Prong Two in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because the claimed elements or their combination do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, in view of Step 2B of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it is determined that the computing elements (such as one or more processors, storage medium) in the claims amount to no more than usage of a generic computing system having a generic computing components, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Dependent claim 2 further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…before determining whether a first-type error has occurred …. checking a file allocation table…” that corresponds to checking data, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information. The additional elements (e.g. file allocation table) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…to determine whether the file allocation of FAT32 conforms… determining whether a first-type error has occurred in the directory table is implemented in response to determining …” correspond to a series of thought process of determining data materials, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information. The additional elements (e.g. file allocation table) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4-6 and 10-12 each further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…marking directory entry …”, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information with data manipulation. The additional elements (e.g. error, files, FAT identification, file size, naming rule) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 7-9 each further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…generating …directory entries …”, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information with data manipulation. The additional elements (e.g. extended entries, directory entries, deleted entry, VFAT, filename) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 13 further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…generating …files … adding…new files…”, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information with data manipulation. The additional elements (e.g. files, directory, second type error, values, FAT ID) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 14 further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…storing video data…overwriting the plurality of data pieces…”, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information with data manipulation. The additional elements (e.g. video data, files, data pieces) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 15 further recites an additional mental process in a limitation of “…in response to determining…adjust a hidden attribute…”, which could be performed mentally based on the gathered information with data manipulation. The additional elements (e.g. files, naming rule, hidden attribute) in the limitation are directed to types of information materials that are being manipulated, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Thus, for at least the reasoning above, the pending claims are not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altaparmakov (Pub No. US 2018/0011872) in view of Hayes et al (Patent No US 9,747,229, hereinafter Hayes).
With respect to claim 1, Altaparmakov discloses a method for managing driving record files adapted for a driving recorder, the driving recorder including a processor and a storage medium that supports a 32-bit version of File Allocation Table (FAT32) (the term “for” indicates intended use of the method which does not necessary carry any patentable weight; Abstract), the method to be implemented by the processor and comprising:
performing a formatting process on the storage medium ([0022-0023]: performing a process correspond to a formatting processes on the storage with respect to data object since the formatting process is merely a process) by
generating a plurality of files that are hidden files and that have a uniform file size, and storing the plurality of files in a directory, where each of the plurality of files is named with a file name according to a naming rule and stores a plurality of data pieces that are successively arranged in a sequential order ([0023]: generate a files that are hidden files as described in [0048] with a uniform size, and storing the files in a directory, wherein each file is named with a file name represented by identifiers according to the naming rules and are arranged in a sequential order, as further described [0038] and shown in Fig 3), and
generating a plurality of directory entries respectively for the plurality of files, where the plurality of directory entries are of a uniform size and are in a directory table that corresponds to the directory and that supports FAT32 ([0024-0025]: generate directory entries having a uninform size in a directory table correspond to the directory that support FAT32, such as the one shown in Fig 3 and further described in [0047], [0049]);
determining whether a first-type error has occurred in the directory table, and in response to determining that the first-type error has occurred in the directory table, performing a first repairing procedure for repairing the first-type error ([0040]: determine whether error has occurred in the directory table, and perform a repair operation correcting the error corresponding to the first repairing procedure, as further described in [0058]).
Altaparmakov does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the first-type error has not occurred in the directory table, determining whether a second-type error has occurred in the directory table, and performing a second repairing procedure for repairing the second-type error in response to determining that the second-type error has occurred in the directory table.
Although one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could reasonably interpreted that Altaparmakov implicitly discloses “in response to determining that the first-type error has not occurred in the directory table, determining whether a second-type error has occurred in the directory table, and performing a second repairing procedure for repairing the second-type error in response to determining that the second-type error has occurred in the directory table” based on locating errors--which include at least two types of errors--with respect to the directory entries via various error checking information ([0040], [0051-0052]), and performing repair to recover at least one data object ([0051], [0057-0058]).
Also, Hayes discloses in response to determining that the first-type error has not occurred in the directory table, determining whether a second-type error has occurred in the directory table, and performing a second repairing procedure for repairing the second-type error in response to determining that the second-type error has occurred in the directory table (Col. 10, lines 8-10 & 25-38: in response to determine a second type of error, such as a power failure, has occurred in the directory table processing, performing a second repairing represented by restoration processing).
Since, both Altaparmakov and Hayes are from the same field of endeavor as both are directed to file management with file allocation table, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings by incorporate restoration processing of different error types of Hayes into Altaparmakov. The motivation to combine is to provide reduce file system corruption and data loss (Altaparmakov, [0022]; Hayes, Col. 2, lines 37-42 & Col. 10, lines 37-40).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose before determining whether a first-type error has occurred in the directory table: in response to determining that the storage medium is mounted, checking a file allocation table of FAT32 (Altaparmakov, [0022-0023], [0051]; Hayes, Col. 4, lines 43-46: check FAT 32 in response to determining the storage medium is mounted, e.g. check for error).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein checking the file allocation table of FAT32 is to determine whether the file allocation table of FAT32 conforms with a format that was defined by the formatting process, wherein determining whether a first-type error has occurred in the directory table is implemented in response to determining that the file allocation table of FAT32 conforms with the format (Altaparmakov, [0038], [0051]; Hayes, Col. 3, lines 55-59, Col. 8,lines 12-26: checking the format of data and determine whether error has occurred with respect the format conformation).
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein the first-type error is an error where a FAT identification (ID) of one of the plurality of files stored in the directory is equal to zero and a file size of the one of the plurality of files is equal to zero, wherein the first repairing procedure includes marking one of the plurality of directory entries that corresponds to the one of the plurality of files as deleted (Altaparmakov, [0040], [005-0051]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: repairing with marking the file as deleted in response to size and/or error determination as set forth by error check via error scenarios).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein the first-type error is an error where two file names respectively of two of the plurality of files stored in the directory conform with the naming rule and two FAT IDs respectively of the two of the plurality of files are identical, wherein the first repairing procedure includes marking the directory entry that corresponds to a latter one of the two of the plurality of files as deleted (Altaparmakov, [0040], [005-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: repairing with marking the file as deleted in response to error with respect to the naming operation, such as having identical names as set forth by error check via error scenarios).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein the first-type error is an error where one of the plurality of directory entries does not conform with a long filename naming rule for Virtual File Allocation Table (VEAT),wherein the first repairing procedure includes marking the one of the directory entries as deleted (the term “for” indicates intended use which does not necessary carry any patentable weight; Altaparmakov, [0030], [0040], [0050-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: repairing with marking the file as deleted in response to error with respect to the naming rule as set forth by error check via error scenarios for a virtual allocation unit correspond to the virtual file allocation table).
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein performing the formatting process includes generating each of the plurality of directory entries to include a plurality of extended entries, and the error where one of the plurality of directory entries does not conform with the long filename naming rule for VFAT is determined to have occurred in response to determining that one of the plurality of extended entries of the one of the directory entries is followed by a deleted entry (Altaparmakov, [0027], [0027], [0049-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: format with generate entry in response to entry deletion and error checking with respect to the naming rule conformation as set forth by error check via error scenarios for a virtual allocation unit correspond to the virtual file allocation table and extended entry via exFAT).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein performing the formatting process includes generating each of the plurality of directory entries to include a plurality of extended entries, and the error where one of the plurality of directory entries does not conform with the long filename naming rule for VFAT is determined to have occurred in response to determining that one of the plurality of extended entries of the one of the directory entries is followed by an end entry (Altaparmakov, [0027], [0027], [0049-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: format with generate entry in response to extend entry via exFAT AND error checking with respect to the naming rule conformation as set forth by error check via error scenarios for a virtual allocation unit correspond to the virtual file allocation table).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein performing the formatting process includes generating each of the plurality of directory entries to include a plurality of extended entries, and the error where one of the plurality of directory entries does not conform with the long filename naming rule for VFAT is determined to have occurred in response to determining that a quantity of the plurality of extended entries of the one of the directory entries is greater than 20 (Altaparmakov, [0027], [0027], [0049-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: format with generate entry in response to extend entry via exFAT AND error checking with respect to the naming rule conformation as set forth by error check via error scenarios for a virtual allocation unit correspond to the virtual file allocation table with respect to entry quantity, which may be any quantity).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein the first-type error is an error where two file names respectively of two of the plurality of files stored in the directory conform with the naming rule and the two file names are identical, wherein the first repairing procedure includes marking the directory entry that corresponds to a latter one of the two of the plurality of files as deleted (Altaparmakov, [0040], [005-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: repairing with marking the file as deleted in response to error with respect to the naming operation, such as having identical names as set forth by error check via error scenarios).
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein the first-type error is an error where a file name of one of the plurality of files stored in the directory conforms with the naming rule and a FAT ID of the one of the plurality of files does not match a predetermined value, wherein the first repairing procedure includes marking one of the plurality of directory entries that corresponds to the one of the plurality of files as deleted (Altaparmakov, [0040], [005-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: repairing with marking the file as deleted in response to error with respect to the naming and identification rules as set forth by error check via error scenarios, including not match a predetermined value, which is merely a value).
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein the first-type error is an error where a FAT ID of one of the plurality of files stored in the directory matches a predetermined value and a file name of the one of the plurality of files does not conform with the naming rule, wherein the first repairing procedure includes marking one of the plurality of directory entries that corresponds to the one of the plurality of files as deleted (Altaparmakov, [0040], [005-0052]; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12: repairing with marking the file as deleted in response to error with respect to the naming rules as set forth by error check via error scenarios, including match a predetermined value, which is merely a value).
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose wherein generating the plurality of files pre-stored in the directory is to generate a number N of files respectively having a number N of FAT IDs that are respectively set to a number N of predetermined values, where N is a positive integer, wherein the second-type error is that, among the number N of files stored in the directory, a number M of file(s) has(have) file name(s) conforming with the naming rule, and FAT ID(s) conforming respectively with a number M of predetermined value(s) among the number N of predetermined values, where M is a positive integer smaller than N, wherein the second repairing procedure includes adding a number (N-M) of new file(s) to the directory, where each of the number (N-M) of new file(s) is a hidden file and has a file name that conforms with the naming rule, and the number (N-M) of new file(s) has(have) a number (N-M) of FAT ID(s) that is(are) set respectively equal to a number (N-M) of predetermined value(s) among the number N of predetermined values excluding the number M of predetermined values (Altaparmakov, [0039-0040], [0048-0052], Fig 3-4; Hayes, Col. 10, lines 1-12 & 25-30: generate a directory with a N number of files, wherein N is an integer having N identifiers and correspond values.. The second error type is having M files regarding naming rules with respect to adding a certain number of new files representing the difference N-M files as set forth by the error scenarios and restoration procedures).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose storing video data obtained from a video-recording module onto the storage medium by renaming one of the plurality of files in the directory that is associated with the video-recording module according to the naming rule, and overwriting the plurality of data pieces stored in the one of the plurality of files with the video data (Altaparmakov, [0029], [0040], Fig 3-4: store video data represented by video files by remaining the files in the directory according to the rule, including overwriting data pieces as disclosed in [0024-0025], [0055]).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Altaparmakov and Hayes further disclose in response to determining that the storage medium is unmounted, for each of the plurality of files that has a file name conforming with the naming rule, adjusting a hidden attribute of the file based on the file name (the hidden attribute is merely an attribute Altaparmakov, [0048]; Hayes, Col. 7, lines 25-40: adjust via updating an attribute correspond to the hidden attribute based on the file metadata/attribute including the name in response the storage is unmounted/removed/disconnected).
Examiner Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle Owyang whose telephone number is (571)270-1254. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/MICHELLE N OWYANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights