DETAILED ACTION
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed August 01, 2024.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered and some are persuasive, while others are not. Accordingly rejections have been removed where arguments were persuasive, but rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, a new rejections based on the newly added amendments have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected and this action has been made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments directed to 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd paragraph rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Claims 2-4 and 15 recited the limitations of “favorably or unfavorably” are merely intended use and indefinite. Applicant’s provided support in the original specification included compares…advantages or disadvantages relations etc. Reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim. See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997), The terms favorably or unfavorably can be any type of determination or successful. The claims do not define for example, how compares favorably or how unfavorably threshold number determined etc. As such, the limitations are indefinite and the rejection is hereby sustained.
4. Applicant’s arguments directed to double patenting rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Double patenting rejection do not held until allowable subject matter is indicated or when the claim language is finally determined and it is not a bona fide attempt to advance prosecution (see MPEP 804[R-5]). The amended claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s). Applicant’s is reminded that terminal disclaimer is sufficient to overcome the non-statutory obviousness double patenting rejection. As such, the double patenting rejection is hereby sustained.
5. Applicant’s argument with regards to 35 USC 103(a) (i.e. pages 14-16) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues that Thornton et al. and Baptist et al do not teach or suggest “rebuilding, by the second memory device…number of encoded data slices.. storing a first subset of the first group…transferring a second subset of the first group..memory device; How Thornton write process..teach rebuilding…how a second memory device is performing…how Thornton write process would in any way teach rebuilding…has not shown how “a second memory: device” is performing…rebuilding of paragraph 50….how this would teach in any way..storing particular encoded data slices in a particular memory device…transferring encoded data slices to another particular memory device. Baptist…teaches how a second subset of encoded data slices..prima face case of obviousness has not been put forth by the offices….is overcome”. The arguments however are not persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recited the limitations of particular encoded data slices in a particular memory device; data slices to another particular memory device etc. As such, these arguments are not persuasive. If Applicant’s intend to have particular data slice or particular memory device the claims should be amended by defining particular data slice or particular memory device. Thornton in view of Baptist clearly reaches the claim recited limitations. Thornton teaches data slice requiring rebuilding to produce an identified data slice (abstract), rebuilding data in a dispersed data storage network (e.g., dispersed data storage network have first or second memory device) ([0008]), dividing encoded information into multiple slices ([0016]), a rebuilder application operating within the dispersed data storage network periodically walks through all data slices (e.g. number of encoded data slices) stored on the dispersed data storage network ([0042]), these features teaches the limitations of “rebuilding, by the second memory device, a first group of encoded data slices of the number of encoded data slices”. Also teaches, dispersed data storage networks rely on storage media to store data slices (e.g., dispersed data storage network associated with storage media teaches second memory device). This storage media, like all storage media (e.g., all storage media teaches first or second memory device) ([0018]), n data slices, which are stored in separate devices (e.g., n data slices teaches first or second group of data slices) ([0017]), dividing encoded information into multiple slices, dispersed data storage networks can be implemented a data slice based on a scan of stored data slices. where a large number of related data slices (e.g., encoded information into multiple slices, dispersed data storage network associated with stored data slices or large number of data slices teaches first or second group of encoded data slices) ([0016], [0019]), Furthermore, dispersed data storage networks rely on numerous transmissions to physically disparate slice servers. Dispersed data storage network which implies to plurality of computing devices (e.g., dispersed data storage networks rely on numerous transmissions or dispersed data storage network which implies to plurality of computing devices teaches transferring…of the first group of encoded data slices for storage in the memory device) ([0018], [0032]), these features teaches the limitations of “storing…of the first group of encoded data slices in the second memory device; and transferring…of the first group of encoded data slices for storage in the memory device”. Thornton teaches the claimed invention including the limitations of the first group (0011]), but does not explicitly teach the amended claim recited limitations of a first subset of the first group; a second subset of the first group. Although, Thornton teaches sets of slices are calculated ([0083]). However, in the same field of endeavor, Baptist teaches the limitations of a first subset of the first group; a second subset of the first group (see Baptist, [0100], e.g., data storage network memory storage sets 1 and 2 include a plurality of dispersed storage (DS) units 1-4 to accommodate a vault with a pillar width n=4. The DSN memory storage sets 1 and 2 can include any number of DS units). Therefore, the combined references teach the claim recited limitations. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, Baptist teaches data is encoded and distributedly stored at physically diverse locations to improved data storage ([0049]), determines one or more slices is corrupted or lost, rebuilds the corrupted or lost slices, stores the rebuild slices ([0056]), transforms the encoded data segment into plurality of error coded data slices in accordance with the slicing parameter ([0076], [0085], [0100], e.g., data storage units (e.g., first or second memory), [0132]), these features also teaches the argued claim recited limitations. Therefore, taken alone or the combined references teach the claim recited limitations. Thornton and Baptist do not need to disclose anything over and above the invention as claimed in order to render it unpatentable or anticipate. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claimed limitations. Applicant’s is remined that obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either explicitly or implicitly in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143). Any other arguments made by the Applicant’s are similar arguments and are moot for the reasons set forth above and in the detailed office action below. Applicant’s fails to consider each of the paragraphs on Thornton and Baptist references. Applicants also fail to consider the references which are prior art of record (e.g., non-final rejection mailed on 05/22/24, page 16) The Examiner encourages the full consideration of the references cited in the “Prior Art” on record. Consideration of the references which were cited as the prior art of record is recommended to properly amend the claims of the instant application to be patentably distinguished beyond the prior art of record. Examiner examines the claims based on ‘broad and reasonable interpretation of claim’ as recommended by MPEP§ 2105. An applicant can always amend a claim during prosecution to better reflect the intended scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 2-5 and 15 are 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.
In claims 2-4 and 15 recited the limitations of “favorably or unfavorably”. The terms “favorably” or “unfavorably” are merely intended use, which does not further limit the claimed invention, does not given weight. These terms can also indefinite. Anything determination or successful can interpret as favorably or unfavorably. As such, the limitation of favorably, unfavorably is indefinite as it fails to point out what is being described. These terms can be amended as configured to.
Dependent claims are rejected for incorporating the same deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Double Patenting
8. 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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-16 US Patent No. 11,580,076 B1. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims are not patently distinct since omission and addition of a cited limitation will not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function of application management.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-18 US Patent No. 10,558,621 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims are not patently distinct since omission and addition of a cited limitation will not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function of application management.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-27 US Patent No. 9,900,316. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims are not patently distinct since omission and addition of a cited limitation will not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function of application management.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-10 of Patent No. US 8,549351. The claims are not patently distinct since omission and addition of a cited limitation will not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function of application management.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-22 US Patent No. 8,566,354. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims are not patently distinct since omission and addition of a cited limitation will not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function of application management.
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 35 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 F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious 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). 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. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thornton et al. (U.S. 2010/0161916 A1), hereinafter Thornton in view of Baptist et al. (US 2011/0161754 A1), hereinafter Baptist.
As for claim 1, Thornton teaches a method for execution by one or more computing devices of a storage network, the method comprises: determining to rebuild a number of encoded data slices for a memory device of a storage unit of the storage network (see [0040], a distributed computer system implementing a dispersed data storage network, read and write transaction counts and rebuild activities);
wherein data is dispersed storage error encoded in accordance with error encoding parameters into pluralities of sets of encoded data slices, and wherein the pluralities of sets of encoded data slices include the number of encoded data slices (see abstract, data slice requiring rebuilding to produce an identified data slice, wherein the identified data slice is one of a plurality of data slices that constitute a data segment and wherein each of the plurality of data slices is assigned for storage, [0016], e.g., dividing encoded information into multiple slices);
identifying a second memory device of the storage network; rebuilding, by the second memory device, a first group of encoded data slices of the number of encoded data slices (see abstract, data slice requiring rebuilding to produce an identified data slice [0050], the number of data slices that must be successfully written will be set to the minimum number of slices needed to recreate the data, a data segment is written to the dispersed data storage network, a transaction identifier is assigned and stored along with each written data slice, [0008], [0042]; Also see response to arguments section above);
storing…of the first group of encoded data slices in the second memory device; and transferring…of the first group of encoded data slices for storage in the memory device (see [0016], e.g., well-known methods of dividing encoded information into multiple slices so that the original information can be reassembled even if all of the slices are not available, [0018], e.g., dispersed data storage networks rely on storage media to store data slices. This storage media, like all storage media. Furthermore, dispersed data storage networks rely on numerous transmissions to physically disparate slice servers, [0017], [0019], [0032]; Also see response to arguments section above).
Thornton teaches the claimed invention including the limitations of the first group (0011]), but does not explicitly teach the amended claim recited limitations of a first subset of the first group; a second subset of the first group. Although, Thornton teaches sets of slices are calculated ([0083]). However, in the same field of endeavor, Baptist teaches the limitations of a first subset of the first group; a second subset of the first group (see Baptist, [0100], e.g., data storage network memory storage sets 1 and 2 include a plurality of dispersed storage (DS) units 1-4 to accommodate a vault with a pillar width n=4. The DSN memory storage sets 1 and 2 can include any number of DS units; [0076], [0085], [0100]; Also see response to arguments section above).
Thornton and Baptist both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as encode data slices for rebuilding in distributed storage network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Baptist’s teaching to Thornton’s system to determines where (e.g., which address of one or more of the memories) to store the received data object as encoded data slices. Thus, perform the determination of the number of favorable writes response from subset of DS units efficiently in the DS processing data in proper storage. This kind of determination such as store the received data object as encoded data slices among memories provide an available memory, memory performance data, memory status, memory cost data, and any other parameter to facilitate desired levels of efficiency and performance (see Baptist, [0065], [0110]).
As for claim 12,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 12 is a computer readable storage device claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Baptist’s teaching to Thornton’s system to determines where (e.g., which address of one or more of the memories) to store the received data object as encoded data slices. Thus, perform the determination of the number of favorable writes response from subset of DS units efficiently in the DS processing data in proper storage. This kind of determination such as store the received data object as encoded data slices among memories provide an available memory, memory performance data, memory status, memory cost data, and any other parameter to facilitate desired levels of efficiency and performance (see Baptist, [0065], [0110]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: determining whether the number compares favorably to a rebuild threshold number; and when the number compares favorably to the rebuild threshold number, performing the identifying the second memory device (see Thornton, [0049]; Also see, Baptist, [0039], [0132]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: when the number compares unfavorably to the rebuild threshold number: rebuilding, by the memory device, the number of encoded data slices; and storing the number of encoded data slices in the memory device (see Thornton, [0049]; Also see, Baptist, [0132]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: prior to the identifying the second memory device: determining a network loading level; comparing the network loading level to a network loading threshold; and when the network loading level compares favorably to the network loading threshold, identifying one or more other memory devices for performing rebuilding of the number of encoded data slices, wherein the one or more other memory devices includes the second memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0044], [0049]; Also see, Baptist, [0039], [0132]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: identifying a third memory device of the storage network rebuilding, by the third memory device, a second group of encoded data slices of the number of encoded data slices; storing a third subset of the second group of encoded data slices in the third memory device; and transferring a fourth subset of the second group of encoded data slices for storage in the memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0040]; Also see, Baptist, [0046], [0100]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: transferring a fifth subset of the second group of encoded data slices for storage in the second memory device (see Thornton, [0040]; Also see, Baptist, [0046], [0100]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the identifying the number of encoded data slices comprises: scanning, from one or more plurality of sets of encoded data slices to another one or more plurality of sets of encoded data slices, to identify the number of encoded data slices (see Thornton, abstract, [0016], [0052]; Also see, Baptist, [0046]).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the scanning comprises: sending list requests to storage units of the storage network, wherein the list requests include a request to list slice names of encoded data slices being stored by the respective storage units; receiving list responses from the storage units, wherein the list responses includes a list of slices names of encoded data slices that are stored by the respective storage units; and interpreting the list of slices names of encoded data slices that are stored by the respective storage units to identify the encoded data slices (see Thornton, abstract, [0052]; Also see, Baptist, [0046]).
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: determining a rebuilding threshold for the rebuilding the first group of encoded data slices; monitoring progress of the rebuilding to determine a rebuilding level; and when the rebuilding level exceeds the rebuilding threshold, perform the transferring (see Thornton, abstract, [0040], [0046]; Also see, Baptist, [0039]).
As to claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
further comprises: after identifying the second memory device: associating slice names of the first group of encoded data slices with the second memory device; and disassociating the slice names from the memory device; and after the transferring of the second subset: disassociating slice names of the at least some of the first group of encoded data slices with the second memory device; and associating the slice names with the memory device (see Thornton, [0010], [0011]; Also see, Baptist, [0100]).
As to claim 11, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the first subset and the second subset includes a common encoded data slice (see Thornton, [0016], [0064]; Also see, Baptist, [0086], [0100]).
As to claim 13, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: determine whether the number is greater than a rebuild threshold number; and when the number is equal to or greater than the rebuild threshold number, perform the identifying the second memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0046]; Also see, Baptist, [0039]).
As to claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: when the number is less than the rebuild threshold number: rebuild, by the memory device, the number of encoded data slices; and store the number of encoded data slices in the memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0049]; Also see, Baptist, [0039]).
As to claim 15, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: prior to the identifying the second memory device: determine a network loading level; compare the network loading level to a network loading threshold; and when the network loading level compares unfavorably to the network loading threshold, identify one or more other memory devices for performing rebuilding of the number of encoded data slices, wherein the one or more other memory devices includes the second memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0042], [0044]; Also see, Baptist, [0039]).
As to claim 16, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: identify a third memory device of the storage network; rebuild, by the third memory device, a second group of encoded data slices of the number of encoded data slices; store at least a second subset of the second group of encoded data slices in the second memory device; and transfer at least some of the second group of encoded data slices for storage in the memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0040]; Also see, Baptist, [0046], [0100]).
As to claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: transfer at least some of the second group of encoded data slices for storage in the second memory device (see Thornton, [0016], [0052]; Also see, Baptist, [0046]).
As to claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: determine a rebuilding threshold for the rebuilding the first group of encoded data slices; monitor progress of the rebuilding to determine a rebuild level; and when the rebuilding level exceeds the rebuilding threshold, perform the transferring (see Thornton, abstract, [0049], [0052]; Also see, Baptist, [0039]).
As to claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: after identifying the second memory device: associate slice names of the first group of encoded data slices with the second memory device; and disassociate the slice names from the memory device (see Thornton, [0010], [0011]; Also see, Baptist, [0100]).
As to claim 20, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Thornton and Baptist teaches:
wherein the at least one memory section stores further operational instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, causes the one or more computing devices to: disassociate slice names of the at least some of the first group of encoded data slices with the second memory device; and associate the slice names with the memory device (see Thornton, abstract, [0052]; Also see, Baptist, [0046]).
Prior Arts
11. US 2011/0078277 A1 teaches data storage units to utilize to store slices of the same data object, same data segment slices are contained within the same stripe. Data storage processing unit issues slice read commands to at least a threshold number of the DS units storing the requested data. A random-like, or round-robin process to select which memory the slice will go to based on its name ([0052], [0118], [0124]).
US 2011/0029711 A1 teaches rebuilding process, a data slice is rebuilt by combining in any order slice partials generated from at least a threshold number of the plurality of data slices. The DS storage units provide the integrity data in response to a scan request from the grid module and/or at predetermined intervals. Prioritization information for DS storage unit usage, and rebuilding criteria ([0078], [0082]).
Erasure Codes for Storage Applications; Dr. James S. Plank; FAST 2005; teaches distributed data or object stores, number of data disks, dividing encoded information into multiple slices so that the original information can be reassembled even if all of the slices are not available (pages 2-64).
Also see, US 20100161916, US 20100306578, US 2007/0079082, US 2007/0079081, US 554910, US 2011/0029809, US 8,54,8913, US 8,54,9351, US 8,555130, US 8566354 these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
12. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(f)).
13. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96). Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner
should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The
examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Hosain Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3978. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
10/04/24
