Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 19/469,359, filed on 9/25/2025 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2024/080352 01/20/1970
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9,12-13 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 9/25/2025
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 9/25/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under
35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA
application # 202310321049.6 filed on 03/28/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 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 the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by “reading the first original data cached locally, wherein the first original data is read, in the read-only manner, and “cached in advance”, particularly cached in advance being indefinite as cache storage may be temporary store data.
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 1-9,12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,7-8, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1. (Original)
A data management system, comprising a data storage end and a plurality of first-type access ends, wherein the data storage end maintains first original data comprising original content, and the plurality of first-type access ends each have a shared read-only permission for the first original data, wherein
any one of the plurality of first-type access ends is configured to read loaded first original data in a read-only manner in response to an access request for the first original data, and cache first updated data generated based on the read first original data; and
the data storage end is configured to update the first original data based on a data updating and merging result, wherein a data source for generating the data updating and merging result comprises the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example data storage, original data, type of access, updating, merging result in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere data collection.
Claim 7: additional limitations: “the plurality of first- type access ends each have shared read-only permission for the first original data”,
reading loaded first original data in a read-only manner in response to an access request for the first original data; and
caching first updated data generated based on the read first original data, wherein the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends is used as a data source to generate a data updating and merging result, to enable the data storage end to update the first original data based on the data updating and merging result
Claim 8: additional limitations:
“generating a data updating and merging result by using first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends as a data source, wherein the first updated data cached by any one of the plurality of first-type access ends is generated by the first-type access end by reading loaded first original data in a read-only manner, and the first original data is loaded by the first-type access end in response to an access request for the first original data; and
updating the first original data based on the data updating and merging result”,
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of data storage, original data, type of access, updating, merging result, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 7, para: 0086-0087,0091-0094, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 7, para: 0086-0087,0091-0094 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2, further elaborates “wherein reading, by any one of the plurality of first-type access ends, the loaded first original data in the read-only manner comprises:
accessing the data storage end in response to the access request, and reading, in the read-only manner, content specified in the access request from the loaded first original data; or
reading the first original data cached locally, wherein the first original data is read, in the read-only manner, and cached in advance”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3. (Original) The system according to claim 1, “wherein an application is deployed on any one of the plurality of first-type access ends, and the access request is initiated by the application for the first original data”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 4. (Original) The system according to claim 1, “wherein the shared read-only permission for the first original data is granted by a user that separately logs into the plurality of first-type access ends, and the first original data belongs to the user; and reading, by any one of the first-type access ends, the loaded first original data in the read- only manner comprises:
reading, in the read-only manner based on information about the user that has logged into the first-type access end, the loaded first original data belonging to the user”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The system according to claim 1, “wherein the data storage end further maintains second original data that has the same original content as the first original data, and the system further comprising:
a second-type access end, having an exclusive read/write permission for the second original data, and configured to trigger the data storage end to update the second original data in response to an updating request initiated for the second original data
wherein the data source for generating the data updating and merging result further comprises: an update record of the second original data by the second-type access end”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 6. (Original) The system according to claim 5, “wherein updating, by the data storage end, the first original data based on the data updating and merging result comprises:
merging, according to a first merging strategy, the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends, and pre-updating the first original data based on a corresponding first data updating and merging result; and merging a pre- updating result of the first original data and a pre-updating result of the second original data according to a second merging strategy, and updating the first original data and the second original data based on a corresponding second data updating and merging result; or
merging, according to a third merging strategy, the pre-updating result of the second original data and the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends, and updating the first original data and the second original data based on a corresponding third data updating and merging result, wherein
the updated first original data and the updated second original data comprise same updated content”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 9. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 8, “wherein the data storage end further maintains second original data that has the same original content as the first original data, the data management system further comprises a second-type access end having an exclusive read/write permission for the second original data, and the method further comprising: updating the second original data in response to triggering by the second-type access end; wherein the data source for generating the data updating and merging result further comprises: an update record of the second original data by the second-type access end”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 10. (Cancelled).
Claim 11. (Cancelled).
Claim 12. (Currently Amended) An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a storage, configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor runs the executable instructions to implement the method according to any one of claim 7”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 13. (Currently Amended) “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by a processor, implement steps of the method according to any one of claim 7”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-9,12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramagiri et al., (hereafter Ramagiri), US Pub. No. 2020/0301854 published Sep, 2020 in view of Kimelman et al., (hereafter Kim), US Pub. No. 2021/0263851 published Aug, 2021
As to Claim 1. (Original) A data management system, comprising a data storage end (fig 2, 0046 – Ramagiri teaches data storage using computer hardware unit such as memory protection unit as memory management configured to store data) and a plurality of first-type access ends, wherein the data storage end maintains first original data comprising original content (Ramagiri: fig 2, Abstract, 0062-0063, 0072-0073, fig 4 – Ramagiri teaches storage data management particularly defining access permissions in accessing memory and the access permissions are used to control memory access, and prior art of Ramagiri specifically teaches read/write permission corresponds to type access for example, “read permission”, “write permission”, fig 4 describes “read/write request types” with permitted access)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“and the plurality of first-type access ends each have a read-only permission for the first original data, wherein” (Ramagiri: fig 10, 0089 – Ramagiri teaches “read/write request” permissions, access types that including read permission, write permission in accessing data, further access request element 1010 requesting “readShared” request in a shared memory environment as detailed in fig 10 where memory protection unit provides identified access permissions)
PNG
media_image2.png
189
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“any one of the plurality of first-type access ends is configured to read loaded first original data in a read-only manner in response to an access request for the first original data (Ramagiri: fig 5-6, 0069-0070 – Ramagiri teaches type access for example read/write. The prior art of Ramagiri teaches a “read request” loaded augmented with access permission and read access performed at element 520 as read-only status because filtering based on access permission as shown in fig 6) “and cache first updated data generated based on the first read original data” (Ramagiri: 0075 – Ramagiri teaches read request for data in a local cache augmented by the access permission status being modified and updated as retrieved data as detailed in fig 5-6) ; and
“the data storage end is configured to update the first original data based on a data updating and merging result, wherein a data source for generating the data updating” (Ramagiri: 0077-0079 – Ramagiri teaches access permission for read/write , identifies read access permission of request node accordingly update and/or modify data as snoop data augmented by read/write permission) “and merging result comprises the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends” (Ramagiri: 0031,0066-0067 – Ramagiri teaches modified data from the read/write access request data with memory data or snooped data, merged either back to memory or cache based on the request attributes).
It is however, noted that Ramagiri does not disclosed “read-only permission”, although Ramagiri teaches read permission, write permission and/or R/W permission (Ramagiri: Abstract). On the other hand, Kim disclosed “read-only permission” (Kim: 0014-0015,0019 fig 2 – Kim teaches range of read-only addresses of the memory and respective read-only data access request in data processing system, further copy of the read-only access address corresponding “read-only data”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention data processing in distributed cache particularly read access request to a “read-only” location of corresponding data of Kim et al., into accessing shared memory particularly data access request including Read/write access permissions of Ramagiri et al., because both Ramagiri, Kim teaches access permission of read and write (Ramagiri: Abstract; Kim: fig 2, Abstract) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Ramagiri, Kim teaches access request of read/write, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly defining read-only address and corresponding read-only data from the memory and/or cache where read-only data cannot be modified, while read-only address may be replicated in more than one cache portions to enable faster access by increasing the probability that cached read data and backing store such as system memory (Kim: 0006)
As to Claim 2, the combination of Ramagiri, Kim disclosed “wherein reading, by any one of the plurality of first-type access ends, the loaded first original data in the read-manner comprises (Ramagiri: 0085):
“accessing the data storage end in response to the access request, and reading, in the, content specified in the access request from the loaded first original data” (Ramagiri: 0057-0052); or
“reading the first original data cached locally, wherein the first original data is read, and cached in advance” (Ramagiri: 0063-0064). On the other hand, Kim disclosed “read-only manner” (Kim: Kim: 0014-0015,0019 fig 2)
As to Claim 3, the combination of Ramagiri, Kim disclosed “wherein an application is deployed on any one of the plurality of first-type access ends, and the access request is initiated by the application for the first original data” (Ramagiri: 0029-0030).
As to Claim 4, the combination of Ramagiri, Kim disclosed “ wherein the shared read permission for the first original data is granted by a user that separately logs into the plurality of first-type access ends, and the first original data belongs to the user; and reading, by any one of the first-type access ends, the loaded first original data in the read- only manner comprises (Ramagiri: 0043-0045,0051-0058):
“reading, in the read manner based on information about the user that has logged into the first-type access end, the loaded first original data belonging to the user” (Ramagiri: fig 5-6, 0068-0069, 0079). On the other hand, Kim disclosed “read-only manner (Kim: 0014-0015), shared read-only permission (Kim: 0014-0015,0019 0027, fig 2)
As to Claim 5,9, the combination of Ramagiri, Kim disclosed “wherein the data storage end further maintains second original data that has the same original content as the first original data, and the system further comprising(Ramagiri: fig 1, 0022-0023)
“a second-type access end, having an exclusive read/write permission for the second original data, (Ramagiri: 0021, 0044-0045, 0062-0065, fig 4) and configured to trigger the data storage end to update the second original data in response to an updating request initiated for the second original data” (Ramagiri:0070-0071, 0077-0079);
“wherein the data source for generating the data updating and merging result further comprises: an update record of the second original data by the second-type access end” (Ramagiri: 0077-0079).
As to Claim 6, the combination of Ramagiri, Kim disclosed wherein updating, by the data storage end, the first original data based on the data updating and merging result comprises: (Ramagiri: 0077-0079)
merging, according to a first merging strategy, the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends, and pre-updating the first original data based on a corresponding first data updating and merging result; and merging a pre- updating result of the first original data and a pre-updating result of the second original data according to a second merging strategy, (Ramagiri: 0074-005,0077-0079) and updating the first original data and the second original data based on a corresponding second data updating and merging result; (Ramagiri:0070-0071, 0077) or
merging, according to a third merging strategy, the pre-updating result of the second original data and the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends, and updating the first original data and the second original data based on a corresponding third data updating and merging result, (Ramagiri: 0065-0068, 0070-0071, 0077)wherein
“the updated first original data and the updated second original data comprise same updated content” (Ramagiri: 0077-0079).
As to Claim 7. (Currently Amended) Ramagiri teaches a system which including “a data updating method, applied to any first-type access end among a plurality of first-type access ends comprised in a data management system, wherein the data management system further comprises a data storage end, the data storage end maintains first original data comprising original content, (fig 2, 0046 – Ramagiri teaches data storage using computer hardware unit such as memory protection unit as memory management configured to store data) the plurality of first- type access ends each have read permission for the first original data, the method comprising: (Ramagiri: fig 2, Abstract, 0062-0063, 0072-0073, fig 4 – Ramagiri teaches storage data management particularly defining access permissions in accessing memory and the access permissions are used to control memory access, and prior art of Ramagiri specifically teaches read/write permission corresponds to type access for example, “read permission”, “write permission”, fig 4 describes “read/write request types” with permitted access)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“reading loaded first original data in a read-only manner in response to an access request for the first original data” (Ramagiri: fig 10, 0089 – Ramagiri teaches “read/write request” permissions, access types that including read permission, write permission in accessing data, further access request element 1010 requesting “readShared” request in a shared memory environment as detailed in fig 10 where memory protection unit provides identified access permissions)
PNG
media_image2.png
189
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“caching first updated data generated based on the read first original data” (Ramagiri: fig 4, 0062-0064 – Ramagiri teaches updating cache from the read/write request)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“wherein the first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends is used as a data source to generate a data updating” (Ramagiri: fig 4-5, 0068-0070) and “merging result, to enable the data storage end to update the first original data based on the data updating and merging result” (Ramagiri: 0031,0066-0067 – Ramagiri teaches modified data from the read/write access request data with memory data or snooped data, merged either back to memory or cache based on the request attributes)..
It is however, noted that Ramagiri does not teach “shared read-only permission”, although Ramagiri teaches read permission, write permission and/or R/W permission (Ramagiri: Abstract). On the other hand, Kim disclosed “shared read-only permission” (Kim: 0014-0015,0019,0027, fig 2 – Kim teaches range of read-only addresses of the memory and respective read-only data access request in data processing system, further copy of the read-only access address corresponding “read-only data”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention data processing in distributed cache particularly read access request to a “read-only” location of corresponding data of Kim et al., into accessing shared memory particularly data access request including Read/write access permissions of Ramagiri et al., because both Ramagiri, Kim teaches access permission of read and write (Ramagiri: Abstract; Kim: fig 2, Abstract) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Ramagiri, Kim teaches access request of read/write, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly defining read-only address and corresponding read-only data from the memory and/or cache where read-only data cannot be modified, while read-only address may be replicated in more than one cache portions to enable faster access by increasing the probability that cached read data and backing store such as system memory (Kim: 0006)
As to Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Ramagiri teaches a system which including “a data updating method, applied to a data storage end in a data management system, wherein the data management system further comprises , (fig 2, 0046 – Ramagiri teaches data storage using computer hardware unit such as memory protection unit as memory management configured to store data) a plurality of first-type access ends, the data storage end maintains first original data comprising original content, the plurality of first-type access ends each have a read-permission for the first original data, the method comprising: (Ramagiri: fig 2, Abstract, 0062-0063, 0072-0073, fig 4 – Ramagiri teaches storage data management particularly defining access permissions in accessing memory and the access permissions are used to control memory access, and prior art of Ramagiri specifically teaches read/write permission corresponds to type access for example, “read permission”, “write permission”, fig 4 describes “read/write request types” with permitted access)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“generating a data updating and merging result by using first updated data respectively cached by the plurality of first-type access ends as a data source,
(Ramagiri: fig 4, 0062-0064 – Ramagiri teaches updating cache from the read/write request)
PNG
media_image1.png
230
149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“wherein the first updated data cached by any one of the plurality of first-type access ends is generated by the first-type access end by reading loaded first original data in a read-only manner, (Ramagiri: fig 4-5, 0068-0070) “and the first original data is loaded by the first-type access end in response to an access request for the first original data” (Ramagiri: fig 5-6, 0069-0070 – Ramagiri teaches type access for example read/write.; and
updating the first original data based on the data updating and merging result(Ramagiri: 0031,0066-0067 – Ramagiri teaches modified data from the read/write access request data with memory data or snooped data, merged either back to memory or cache based on the request attributes)...
It is however, noted that Ramagiri does not teach “shared read-only permission”, although Ramagiri teaches read permission, write permission and/or R/W permission (Ramagiri: Abstract). On the other hand, Kim disclosed “shared read-only permission” (Kim: 0014-0015,0019,0027, fig 2 – Kim teaches range of read-only addresses of the memory and respective read-only data access request in data processing system, further copy of the read-only access address corresponding “read-only data”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention data processing in distributed cache particularly read access request to a “read-only” location of corresponding data of Kim et al., into accessing shared memory particularly data access request including Read/write access permissions of Ramagiri et al., because both Ramagiri, Kim teaches access permission of read and write (Ramagiri: Abstract; Kim: fig 2, Abstract) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Ramagiri, Kim teaches access request of read/write, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly defining read-only address and corresponding read-only data from the memory and/or cache where read-only data cannot be modified, while read-only address may be replicated in more than one cache portions to enable faster access by increasing the probability that cached read data and backing store such as system memory (Kim: 0006)
Claim 10. (Cancelled).
Claim 11. (Cancelled).
As to claim 12, the combination of Ramagiri, Kim disclosed “ a processor; and a storage, configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor runs the executable instructions to implement the method according to any one of claim 7 (Ramagiri: 0027,0046,0122-0123)
13. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by a processor, implement steps of the method according to any one of claim 7 (Ramagiri: 0027,0046,0122-0123,0124)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2020/0301854 – is directed to accessing shared memory including read/write access permissions
b. US Pub. No. 2021/0263851 – distributed cache in data processing system
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns 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.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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 http://pair-direct.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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights