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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,034. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,034 anticipate the claims of the present application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the fifth line from the bottom of claim 18 recites “first name space”. There should not be any space between the words name and space. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 12/17/2025. The Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1 and 3-20. Claim 2 has been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and claims 1 and 3-20 are allowable if the double patenting issue is resolved. Claims 1, 18, and 20 is/are independent.
Applicants request for abeyance of the double patenting rejection is noted. However, the double patenting rejection is maintained until applicant overcomes the rejection.
The rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, page 1, fifth paragraph, to page 5, 4th paragraph) filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims 1 and 3-20 have been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment and persuasive arguments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-20 would be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record (in particular, Hashimoto et al. U.S. Publication 20160110295 (hereinafter "Hashimoto") in view of Dewitt et al. U.S. Publication 20170351431 (hereinafter "Dewitt"), in view of Nachenberg et al. U.S. Publication 20180165470 (hereinafter "Nachenberg"), in view of Lockhart et al. Canadian Publication CA 2684229 A1 (hereinafter "Lockhart"), in view of Singhai et al. U.S. Publication 20180025046 (hereinafter “Singhai”), in view of Mityagin et al. U.S. Publication 20150249647 (hereinafter “Mityagin”), in view of Nellans et al. U.S. Publication 20120210095 (hereinafter “Nellans”)) does not expressly disclose all the limitations recited in independent claims and the combination of their features thereon. With respect to independent claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 the closest prior art does not disclose at least the following limitations in the recited context:
CLAIM 1
limit a crypto key to be used in data access requests made in a first namespace allocated on the non-volatile storage media of the computer storage device;
store data in the first namespace in an encrypted form corresponding to the crypto key;
free a portion of the non-volatile storage media from the first namespace, the portion storing the data;
make the portion of the non-volatile storage media available in a second namespace without erasing the data stored in the portion of the non-volatile storage media; and
store a namespace map mapping blocks of logical addresses defined in the first namespace to blocks of logical addresses defined, independent of namespace, on a capacity of the non-volatile storage media;
CLAIM 18
storing a namespace map mapping blocks of logical addresses defined in a first namespace to blocks of logical addresses defined, independent of namespace, on a capacity of a non-volatile storage media;
limiting the crypto key to be used in data access requests made in the first namespace allocated on the non-volatile storage media of the computer storage device;
storing data in the first namespace in an encrypted form corresponding to the crypto key;
performing decryption, via the crypto engine, using the crypto key for data access made in the first name space;
freeing a portion of the non-volatile storage media from the first namespace, the portion storing the data; and
making the portion of the non-volatile storage media available in a second namespace without erasing the data stored in the portion of the non-volatile storage media.
CLAIM 20
storing a namespace map mapping blocks of logical addresses defined in a first namespace to blocks of logical addresses defined, independent of namespace, on a capacity of a non-volatile storage media;
limiting the crypto key to be used in data access requests made in the first namespace allocated on the non-volatile storage media of the computer storage device;
storing data in the first namespace in an encrypted form corresponding to the crypto key;
performing decryption, via the crypto engine, using the crypto key for data access made in the first namespace;
freeing a portion of the non-volatile storage media from the first namespace, the portion storing the data; and
making the portion of the non-volatile storage media available in a second namespace without erasing the data stored in the portion of the non-volatile storage media.
The Applicant's response on page 1, fifth paragraph, to page 5, 4th paragraph of the REMARKS filed 12/17/2025 to Hashimoto, Dewitt and Nachenberg has been fully considered and is persuasive with respect to independent claims 1, 18, and 20. No additional reasons are needed as Applicant's arguments have clearly distinguished the features of the claimed invention from the most relevant prior art of record (Hashimoto, Dewitt and Nachenberg) and shown that it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Dewitt and Nachenberg into the system of Hashimoto to disclose the claimed embodiment.
Therefore, independents claim 1, 18, and 20 is/are allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Dependent claims 3-17 and 19 is/are allowable in view of their respective dependence from independent claims 1, 18, and 20.
None of the prior art of record, either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the claimed embodiments of the allowable claims at or before the time it was filed.
For the reasons described above, the prior art of record does not disclose, with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 18, and 20, features corresponding to those of independent claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 in their respective contexts. Therefore, the independent claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 is/are allowed if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Dependent claims 3-17 and 19 are allowed in view of their respective dependence from independent claim(s) 1, 18, and 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for
Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 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 HOWARD H LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)272-0036. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM-5 PM EST.
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, Jung W. Kim can be reached on 571-272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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). 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.
/HOWARD H. LOUIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494