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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 (C), the applicant’s submission of the information Disclosure Statement dated 08/17/2025(2), 04/22/2026, 07/08/2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of Patent No. US 12,393,432. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Claims 1-17 of Patent No. US 12,393,432 (hereinafter, “Patent”), contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter, “Instant Applicant”) and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Patent No.: US 12,393,432
Instant Application
1. A device, comprising: a physical connector that provides a physical connection between the device and a host; a storage device; a computational storage unit, the computational storage unit including a processor providing near-storage processing of data associated with the storage device via a service of the processor; a receiver to receive, from the host via the physical connection, a request for computational storage capabilities of the computational storage unit; and a transmitter to send a response to the host via the physical connection, the response including information about the service offered by the processor of the computational storage unit, wherein the information indicates a type of processor included in the computational storage unit.
3. The device according to claim 1, further comprising a log page unit to generate a log page, the log page including supplemental information about the computational storage unit.
1. A device, comprising: a connector to connect the device to a host; one or more computational storage units; a log page unit configured to generate, in response to a request from the host, a log page, the log page including supplemental information specific to a computational storage unit of the one or more computational storage units; a receiver to receive the request from the host; and a transmitter to transmit the log page to the host.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which thepatent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karampatsis et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0295255).
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 17, Karampatsis discloses a device, comprising:
a connector (Fig.1B: the transmit/receive element 122) to connect the device (Fig.1B wireless transmit/receive units 102) to a host (claim 1: i.e. network device);
one or more computational storage units (Fig.1B: processor 118);
a log page unit configured to generate, in response to a request from the host (claim 1: i.e. network device), a log page, the log page including supplemental information specific to a computational storage unit of the one or more computational storage units (claim 1: the processor is configured to determine that the second proximity services code satisfies conditions of the indicated at least one associated discovery filter to detect a match with the second proximity services code, wherein the discovery request includes at least a WTRU identity a command, and an application identity);
a receiver (claim 1: i.e., receiver) to receive the request from the host (claim 1: i.e. network device) (Fig.1B and claim 1: the receiver is configured to receive a discovery response from the newwork device); and
a transmitter (claim 1: i.e., transmitter) to transmit the log page to the host (claim 1: i.e. network device) (claim 1: the discovery request includes at least a WTRU identity, a command and a application identity).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Karampatsis discloses wherein the supplemental information in the log page comprises at least one of: a device type identifier, a memory size, a list of supported computational functions, or a version identifier for the computational storage unit (claim 1: the discovery request includes at least a WTRU identity, a command and a application identity).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Karampatsis discloses wherein the log page unit is further configured to generate the log page in a format that includes a field for at least one of: a device capability, device availability, device status, vendor identification, or device serial number (claim 1: the discovery request includes at least a WTRU identity, a command and a application identity).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Karampatsis discloses wherein a third computational storage unit is physically separate from the device, and the log page unit is configured to generate a third log page that indicates an association between the third computational storage unit and the device (Fig.1B, Fig.1C and claim 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Karampatsis discloses wherein the log page indicates whether the computational storage unit supports at least one of downloadable computational storage functions or computational storage program functions (Fig.1B and Fig.1C).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Karampatsis discloses wherein: the host comprises a first processor; and the computational storage unit comprises a second processor separate from the first processor (Fig.1B and Fig.1C).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Karampatsis discloses wherein the log page unit is configured to generate the log page in response to the request comprising a log page request and the request being received via a protocol selected from the group consisting of non-volatile memory express (NVMe), NVMe over fabric (NVMe-oF), or simple service discovery protocol (SSDP) ([0136] and [0198]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4, 12 and 20 identify the distinct features “wherein: the log page unit is further configured to generate, based on the request, a second log page for a second computational storage unit; and the transmitter is configured to transmit the log page and the second log page in a single response to the host, the host receiving supplemental information for multiple computational storage units associated with the device in a unified transmission", which are not taught or suggested by the prior art of records.
Claim 4, 12 and 20 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the claimed features as mentioned above in combination with other claimed features are not recited or suggested by the prior art of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SMITH et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0289027) “IMPLICIT DISCOVERY CONTROLLER REGISTRATION OF NON-VOLATILE MEMORY EXPRESS (NVME) ELEMENTS IN AN NVME-OVER-FABRICS (NVME-OF) SYSTEM”
Considered for teachings related to an information handling system. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for registering NVMe hosts, NVM subsystems, or both in an NVMe-over-Fabrics (NVMe-oF) environment.
Does not disclose or suggest a connector to connect the device to a host; one or more computational storage units; a log page unit configured to generate, in response to a request from the host, a log page, the log page including supplemental information specific to a computational storage unit of the one or more computational storage units; a receiver to receive the request from the host; and a transmitter to transmit the log page to the host.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Yong Choe at telephone number 571-270-1053 or email to yong.choe@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 am to 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutz, Jared Ian can be reached on (571) 272-5535. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
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 PMR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-irect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG J CHOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights