FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0277458 to Yamamoto.
Yamamoto discloses:
1. A method comprising:
determining a fault resilient operating mode of a first fault resilient storage drive of a storage array, wherein the fault resilient operating mode comprises a read-only mode (para. [0031]);
allocating a rescue space of a second fault resilient storage drive of the storage array (paras. [0032], [0054] and Fig. 7);
mapping, based on the determining, user data from the first fault resilient storage drive to the rescue space (paras. [0033], [0056]); and
serving, by the first fault resilient storage drive, based on the read-only mode, and based on a retention status of the user data, a read request (paras. [0035], [0075]).
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the retention status comprises operating beyond a retention period of the user data (paras. [0035], [0075]).
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the allocating is based on an availability of the rescue space (paras. [0032], [0054] and Fig. 7).
23. The method of claim 1, wherein the mapping is based on an availability of the rescue space (paras. [0033], [0056]).
24. The method of claim 1, wherein the serving is based on an availability of the rescue space (paras. [0035], [0075]).
25. The method of claim 1, wherein the read-only mode comprises a sustainable read-only mode (para. [0031]).
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.
Claims 13 and 26-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,288,116 to Frolikov.
Yamamoto discloses:
13. A system comprising:
a storage array comprising:
a first fault resilient storage drive (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, SSDs 161-167);
a second fault resilient storage drive (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, SSDs 161-167); and
a volume manager (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, control device 100) configured to:
perform, based on a first status of a rescue space of the second fault resilient storage drive, a first determination of a first fault resilient operating mode of the first fault resilient storage drive, wherein the first fault resilient operating mode comprises a first read-only mode (para. [0031]);
serve, by the first fault resilient storage drive, based on the first read-only mode, a read request based on a first retention status of user data at the first fault resilient storage drive (paras. [0035], [0075]).
Yamamoto does not disclose expressly:
perform, based on a second status of the rescue space of the second fault resilient storage drive, a second determination of a second fault resilient operating mode of the first fault resilient storage drive, wherein the second fault resilient operating mode comprises a second read-only mode; and
send, by the first fault resilient storage drive, based on the second read-only mode, a notification based on a second retention status of the user data at the first fault resilient storage drive.
Frolikov teaches:
perform, based on a second status of the rescue space of the second fault resilient storage drive, a second determination of a second fault resilient operating mode of the first fault resilient storage drive, wherein the second fault resilient operating mode comprises a second read-only mode (col. 2, lns. 36-40); and
send, by the first fault resilient storage drive, based on the second read-only mode, a notification based on a second retention status of the user data at the first fault resilient storage drive (col. 4, lns. 30-35).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamamoto by performing a determination and sending a notification, as taught by Frolikov. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide improved reliability after the end of normal service life of the SSD, as described by Frolikov (col. 3, lns. 39-41).
Modified Yamamoto discloses:
26. The system of claim 13, wherein:
the first read-only mode comprises a sustainable read-only mode (Yamamoto - para. [0031]); and
the second read-only mode comprises an unsustainable read-only mode (Frolikov - col. 2, lns. 36-40).
27. The system of claim 13, wherein:
the first status of the rescue space comprises an available status (Yamamoto - paras. [0035], [0075]); and
the second status of the rescue space comprises an unavailable status (Frolikov - col. 4, lns. 30-35).
28. The system of claim 13, wherein:
the first retention status comprises operating beyond a retention period of the user data (Yamamoto - paras. [0035], [0075]); and
the second retention status comprises operating within a retention period of the user data (Frolikov - col. 4, lns. 30-35).
29. The system of claim 13, wherein the volume manager is configured to determine, based on the second read-only mode, an integrity of the user data (Frolikov – col. 4, lns. 39-41).
30. The system of claim 29, wherein the volume manager is configured to determine the integrity based on decoding the user data (Frolikov – col. 4, lns. 39-41).
31. The system of claim 13, wherein, based on the second read-only mode and the first retention status of the user data, the user data expires (Frolikov – col. 4, lns. 36-50).
Claims 32-37 are an apparatus substantially identical to the system of claims 13 and 26-31, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/PHILIP GUYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights