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
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 29 October 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: network device in claim 1, support for which was taken as switch in the Specification (see [0071]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
(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 the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Freyensee (US PG PUB No. 20170344259).
As per claim 35, Freyensee discloses a network device being configured to set network connection between at least one storage node and a computing node and transmit data between the computing node and the at least one storage node, and comprising a processor and a memory, and the memory stores instructions that when executed cause the processor to:
manage at least one logical storage space corresponding to data of a service stored in the storage node, wherein the service is run on the computing node (see Freyensee FIG 1: 400 and [0027]) ;
[The program accessing the data in the client is taken as a service as recited in the claims.]
receive, from the computing node, a packet related to a write request for storing to-be- written data of the service to the storage node (see Freyensee FIG 9A: 900 and [0037]);
perform network processing to the packet to get the to-be-written data of the service (see Freyensee FIG 9A: 902 and [0037]);
obtain a first logical storage space of the at least one logical storage space according to the write request (see Freyensee [0037]: “If ( at block 904 and 906 ) the requesting host 102 ; is authorized to access the virtual subsystem 200 , and the virtual namespace 400 , in the target namespace path 508 , respectively , then the virtual device layer 132 determines ( at block 910 ) the one or more physical namespaces 120 , . . . 120 / partitions 406 ; to which the requested virtual namespace 400 , maps , as indicated in the virtual namespace definition 4007.”); and
store the to-be-written data of the service to the storage node according to the first logical storage space (Freyensee.[0036]: “a fabric packet 500 including a read / write request 506 directed to a virtual namespace , e . g . , VSSname . VCname . VNSID , a specific fab ric protocol 126 , 128 , 130 in the fabric layer protocols 124”)
As per claim 36, the network device of claim 35,
wherein the network device is further configured to configure a plurality storage nodes to the first logical storage space, and the plurality storage nodes comprise different types of storage nodes (see Freyensee [0023]).
[Freyensee discloses the storage devices may comprise NAND and also magnetic storage devices.]
As per claim 37, the network device of claim 35,
wherein the network device is further configured to store metadata of the data of the service, and further configured to access the storage node according to the metadata for storing the data of the service to the storage node or obtaining the data of the service from the storage node (see Freyensee [0028]).
As per claim 38, the network device of claim 37,
wherein the metadata comprises an identifier of the first logical storage space, an address of the first logical storage space, and an address of an physical storage space corresponding to the first logical storage space, the physical storage space is within the storage node (see Freyensee [0037]: “Control then proceeds to FIG . 9b where the virtual device layer 132 determines ( at block 912 ) whether the target virtual namespace 508 maps to multiple different physical namespaces / partitions 406 , . . . 406 , . If so , then the virtual device layer 132 performs the loop of operations at blocks 914 - 920 for each physical namespace / partition i of the multiple physical namespace / partitions 406 , . . . 406”).
As per claim 39, the network device of claim 35,
wherein a connection between the computing node and the network device or a connection between the network device and the storage node is a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection (see Freyensee FIG 1: 129).
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.
Claim 21-34,40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyensee (US PG PUB No. 20170344259) in view of Olarig (US PG PUB No. 20200042252).
As per claim [21,28], a computer system (see Freyensee FIG 1: 100) comprising: a computing node (see Freyensee FIG 1: 102), at least one storage node (see Freyensee FIG 1: 104), and a network device (see Freyensee FIG 1: 106),
wherein the network device is configured to form network connection between the at least one storage node and the computing node and transmit data between the computing node and the at least one storage node (see Freyensee FIG 1: 108 and [0018]),
[Freyensee discloses the network device communicates with the computing node via fabric and the storage node via bus interface.]
wherein the computing node comprises a processor and an operating system, and a service runs in the processor and the operating system, the computing node is a server or a virtual entity (see Freyensee [0018]: “Each of the host nodes 1021 . . . 102n , includes , as shown with respect to host node 102 ; , a logical device interface protocol 112 , to perform read / write operations with respect to the storage devices 104 , . . . 104m and a fabric protocol 114 to communicate over the fabric 108”),
wherein the at least one storage node stores data of the service by using a storage medium (see Freyensee FIG 1: 104 and [0023]), and
wherein the network device is configured to:
manage at least one logical storage space corresponding to the data of the service (see Freyensee FIG 1: 400 and [0027]) ;
receive, from the computing node, a packet related to a write request for storing to-be- written data of the service to the storage node (see FIG 9A: 900 and [0037]), and perform network processing to the packet to get the to-be-written data of the service (see Freyensee FIG 9A: 902 and [0037]);
obtain a first logical storage space of the at least one logical storage space according to the write request (see Freyensee [0037]: “If ( at block 904 and 906 ) the requesting host 102 ; is authorized to access the virtual subsystem 200 , and the virtual namespace 400 , in the target namespace path 508 , respectively , then the virtual device layer 132 determines ( at block 910 ) the one or more physical namespaces 120 , . . . 120 / partitions 406 ; to which the requested virtual namespace 400 , maps , as indicated in the virtual namespace definition 4007.”);
divide the to-be-written data into a plurality of data fragments (see Freyensee FIG 9: 916) and
[When the virtual namespace maps to different physical namespace/partitions, Freyensee generates (i.e., divides) commands to service the read/write command.]
store the plurality of data fragments and the parity fragments to the at least one storage node according to the first logical storage space (Freyensee.[0036]: “a fabric packet 500 including a read / write request 506 directed to a virtual namespace , e . g . , VSSname . VCname . VNSID , a specific fab ric protocol 126 , 128 , 130 in the fabric layer protocols 124”)
However, Freyensee does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Olarig discloses
and calculate parity fragments of the plurality of data fragments (see Olarig [0050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further implement parity calculation on the network device as taught by Olarig.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving data protection (see Olarig [0042]: RAID).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further preform parity calculation as taught by Olarig for the benefit of data protection to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim [22, 29], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein the network device is further configured to configure a plurality storage nodes to the first logical storage space, and the plurality storage nodes comprise different types of storage nodes (see Freyensee [0023]).
[Freyensee discloses the storage devices may comprise NAND and also magnetic storage devices.]
As per claim [23, 30], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein the network device is further configured to store metadata of the data of the service, and further configured to access the storage node according to the metadata for storing the data of the service to the storage node or obtaining the data of the service from the storage node (see Freyensee 9A: 912 and [0037]).
As per claim [24,31], the computer system of claim 23,
wherein the metadata comprises an identifier of the first logical storage space, an address of the first logical storage space, and an address of an physical storage space corresponding to the first logical storage space, the physical storage space is within the storage node (see Freyensee [0028]).
[Freyensee discloses mapping a virtual namespace ID to a physical namespace ID and further discloses issuing the request according to the target address. Olarig further discloses managing address correspondence to perform RAID (see Olarig [0066])]
As per claim [25,32], the computer system of claim 24,
wherein the write request further comprising the identifier of the first logical storage space, and the network device is further configured to allocate a first address within the first logical storage space, determine a second address in a the physical storage space corresponding to the first address, and store the to-be- written data of the service to the second address of the physical storage space (see Freyensee [0037]: “Control then proceeds to FIG . 9b where the virtual device layer 132 determines ( at block 912 ) whether the target virtual namespace 508 maps to multiple different physical namespaces / partitions 406 , . . . 406 , . If so , then the virtual device layer 132 performs the loop of operations at blocks 914 - 920 for each physical namespace / partition i of the multiple physical namespace / partitions 406 , . . . 406”).
As per claim [26,33], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein a connection between the computing node and the network device or a connection between the network device and the storage node is a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection (see Freyensee FIG 1: 129)
As per claim [27,34], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein the network device divides the to-be-written data into a plurality of data fragments according to a preset erasure coding (EC) algorithm or a redundant array of independent disks (RAID) algorithm (see Olarig [0042]).
As per claim 40, the network device of claim 35, wherein, after obtaining the write request, the network device is further configured to:
divide the to-be-written data into a plurality of data fragments (see Freyensee FIG 9: 916) and
[When the virtual namespace maps to different physical namespace/partitions, Freyensee generates (i.e., divides) commands to service the read/write command.]
store the plurality of data fragments and the parity fragments to the storage node (Freyensee.[0036]: “a fabric packet 500 including a read / write request 506 directed to a virtual namespace , e . g . , VSSname . VCname . VNSID , a specific fab ric protocol 126 , 128 , 130 in the fabric layer protocols 124”)
However, Freyensee does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Olarig discloses
calculate parity fragments of the plurality of data fragments (see Olarig [0050]); and
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further implement parity calculation on the network device as taught by Olarig.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving data protection (see Olarig [0042]: RAID).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further preform parity calculation as taught by Olarig for the benefit of data protection to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The claims stand rejected on newly cited references.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached on 571-272-1077. 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.
/KALPIT PARIKH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
KALPIT . PARIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights