DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, regarding claim 18, 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.
It is noted that while claim 18 has been amended to include the new limitation of “the first privilege is greater than the second privilege”, it does not include the specific limitations regarding a first controller and a second controller, with the second namespace identifier including information to identify the “first controller”, as in amended claims 1 and 16.
As indicated below, it appears that applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 16 are not supported by applicant’s specification as originally filed, describing which controller of the first and second would constitute a “parent” vs. “child” controller and would have greater privileges. It the context of the claims it appears the “second controller” is the parent controller, and thus the second privilege should be greater than the first, and not the reverse as claimed.
This is further seen in various dependent claims, such as claim 9, which indicates that the first controller is a child controller and the second controller is a parent controller, while applicant’s specification and applicant’s own arguments indicate the parent controller should have the greater privilege.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first privilege is greater than the second privilege” which is not supported by applicant’s specification as originally filed in combination with the additional claim limitations of
“wherein the second namespace identifier comprises:
first information to determine the first namespace identifier; and
second information to identify the first controller.”
As per applicant’s specification (see paragraph 80 of applicant’s specification), and applicant’s arguments (see page 8 of applicant’s response), a parent controller has greater privileges than a child controller.
Thus, the language of “wherein the first privilege is greater than the second privilege” appears to require that the “first controller” is a parent controller and the “second controller” is a child controller.
The later language of “wherein the second namespace identifier comprises: first information to determine the first namespace identifier; and second information to identify the first controller”, however, appears to require the opposite in that the “first controller” is a child controller and the “second controller” is a parent controller.
As per applicant’s specification (see Fig. 5, paragraph 55, 80, 102-106, of applicant’s specification), and applicant’s arguments (see page 8 of applicant’s response), a parent controller uses a global NSID, which maps the global NSID to a local NSID and a child controller.
Thus, as the “global NSID”, which includes a local NSID and a child controller ID, is utilized by a parent controller, it appears the “second controller” is a parent controller and the “first controller” is a child controller, as currently claimed.
There does not appear to be any specific support for the first child controller to have greater privileges than the second parent controller.
While applicant’s specification appears to describe and support a “parent controller” having a greater privilege than a “child controller”, this is the opposite of what is currently claimed, which does not appear to be supported by applicant’s specification as originally filed.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first privilege is greater than the second privilege” which is not supported by applicant’s specification as originally filed in combination with the additional claim limitations of
“wherein the second namespace identifier comprises:
first information to determine the first namespace identifier; and
second information to identify the first controller.”
As per applicant’s specification (see paragraph 80 of applicant’s specification), and applicant’s arguments (see page 8 of applicant’s response), a parent controller has greater privileges than a child controller.
Thus, the language of “wherein the first privilege is greater than the second privilege” appears to require that the “first controller” is a parent controller and the “second controller” is a child controller.
The later language of “wherein the second namespace identifier comprises: first information to determine the first namespace identifier; and second information to identify the first controller”, however, appears to require the opposite in that the “first controller” is a child controller and the “second controller” is a parent controller.
As per applicant’s specification (see Fig. 5, paragraph 55, 80, 102-106, of applicant’s specification), and applicant’s arguments (see page 8 of applicant’s response), a parent controller uses a global NSID, which maps the global NSID to a local NSID and a child controller.
Thus, as the “global NSID”, which includes a local NSID and a child controller ID, is utilized by a parent controller, it appears the “second controller” is a parent controller and the “first controller” is a child controller, as currently claimed.
There does not appear to be any specific support for the first child controller to have greater privileges than the second parent controller.
While applicant’s specification appears to describe and support a “parent controller” having a greater privilege than a “child controller”, this is the opposite of what is currently claimed, which does not appear to be supported by applicant’s specification as originally filed.
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.
Claims 18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttagunta et al. (Puttagunta) (US 10,880,205) (of record) in view of Niell et al. (Niell) (US 2020/0278893) (of record).
As to claim 18, Puttagunta discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1-2, column 2, line 25-49) comprising:
a first user (hosts; Fig. 1-2, column 2, line 25-49) having a first privilege (host membership/ ownership/ permission to access; column 3, line 5, column 3, line 52-65, column 4, line 12-29, column 6, line 12-29), wherein the first user is configured to perform, based on the first privilege, using a first namespace identifier, a first access of a namespace of a device (accessing storage device via “first path” or “alternative path”; column 1, line 37-61, column 4, line 50-column 5, line 27, column 6, line 43-48);
a second user (hosts; Fig. 1-2, column 2, line 25-49) having a first privilege (host membership/ ownership/ permission to access; column 3, line 5, column 3, line 52-65, column 4, line 12-29, column 6, line 12-29), wherein the second user is configured to perform, using a second namespace identifier, a second access of the namespace of the device (accessing storage device via “first path” or “alternate path”, Fig. 3; column 4, line 50-column 5, line 27, column 6, line 57-61);
wherein the first user comprises first hardware. first software, or a combination of first hardware and first software, and the second user comprises second hardware, second software, or a combination of second hardware and second software (column 2, line 25-49, column 3, line 18-32);
wherein the second namespace identifier comprises:
first information to determine the first namespace identifier (Fig. 3; column 4, line 50-column 5, line 27); and
second information to identify a controller of the device, wherein the controller is used for the second access (controller field to ID controller; Fig. 3; column 4, line 50-column 5, line 27),
they fail to specifically disclose wherein the first privilege is greater than the second privilege.
In an analogous art, Niell discloses a storage system (Fig. 2, paragraph 18-29) wherein plural requesters may access storage addresses within a namespace to read/write data based upon their permission levels (paragraph 14-15, 24-30, 33, 40-41), wherein a first privilege is greater than a second privilege (requestors assigned different permission levels for requests; paragraph 24-27, 33-37, 40-41, 95-98) so as increase security and limit specific actions to requestors with the proper permission (paragraph 24-27, 33-37, 40-41, 95-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Puttagunta’s system to include wherein the first privilege is greater than the second privilege, as taught in combination with Niell, for the typical benefit of increasing security and limiting specific actions to requestors with the proper permission (paragraph 24-27, 33-37, 40-41, 95-98).
As to claim 20, Puttagunta and Niell disclose wherein the second user is configured to migrate the first use (see Niell at migrating virtual environment, including host virtual machine, and corresponding access rules; Fig. 5, paragraph 44-53).
As to claim 21, Puttagunta and Niell disclose wherein the device is a first device, the namespace is a first namespace (see Puttagunta at Fig. 1-3; column 2, line 25-49), and the second user is configured to copy, from the first namespace to a second namespace at a second device, user data (migrating virtual environment, including host virtual machine, and corresponding access rules; see Niell at Fig. 5, paragraph 44-53).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights