DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 23 March 2026. By this response, Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not clearly comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.52(a)(iv) and (v) that all papers must be in permanent dark ink or its equivalent and have sufficient clarity and contrast to permit reproduction of legible copies. As per MPEP § 608.01(I), legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned, and the use of a black colored font for text on a white background is strongly recommended. The text of the amendments appears to be in a non-black color and appears pixelated, which makes them difficult to read. Applicant is reminded that any amendments and other papers should use only black text.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as anticipated by Karr et al, US Patent 11868318, and with particular reference to independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that Karr does not disclose detecting ransomware on each tenant by analyzing pattern of an input/output signal between the tenants and the storage device (pages 18-19 of the present response, citing Karr, column 40, lines 8-27, and column 73, line 53-column 74, line 8). However, the cited portions of Karr explicitly disclose analyzing a pattern of input/output signals between tenants and the storage device (see column 40, lines 8-27, especially lines 19-27, detecting a fingerprint of reads and writes, i.e. a pattern of input/output signals) where a tenant executed in a host (noting that the claim only requires one or more tenants and could encompass a single tenant) communicating with the storage device has ransomware detected (column 40, lines 8-27, detecting ransomware between the storage system and other resources, as previously cited; see also column 73, line 53-column 74, line 8, as previously cited, where tenants communicate with the storage system, which in combination shows that the ransomware is detected in both the storage system and resources such as tenants connected thereto). Applicant further argues that Karr does not disclose a tenant status table or updating a tenant status table (pages 19-20 of the present response, citing Karr, column 40, lines 8-27). However, the detection of the ransomware and the restoration of the system show that the status of the system as subject to ransomware is tabulated or otherwise recorded, corresponding to the claimed status table showing detection of ransomware (column 40, lines 8-27, ransomware detected; see also column 20, lines 43-47, monitoring and predicting failures, i.e. status such as warnings). Applicant additionally argues that Karr does not disclose recovery information for data recovery and instead discloses rebuilding the system (page 20 of the present response, citing Karr, column 13, line 52-column 14, line 28). However, the cited portions of Karr disclose both rebuilding and recovery of the data (see column 14, lines 14-28). Applicant also argues that Karr discloses proactively rebuilding the system rather than in response to receiving a recovery signal (page 21 of the present response, citing Karr, column 14, lines 21-28). However, Karr also discloses a recovery signal (i.e. Karr discloses that it is determined when a node is unreachable and that recovery occurs in response to this, see column 14, lines 14-28, which constitutes a response to a recovery signal).
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and for informalities are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings.
Specification
The objection to the abstract for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amendments thereto. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 20 for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s remarks (see pages 14-17 of the present response). The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a pattern of an input/output signal between the one or more tenants and the storage device” in lines 4-5. It is not clear how a single signal would provide a “pattern”, and it is not clear how there would be one signal between plural tenants. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “writing data that is stored in a data area of the previously mapped page in a data area of a second page” in lines 3-4. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “in a data area of a second page” is intended to modify.
Claim 15 recites “a pattern of an input/output signal between the one or more tenants and the storage device” in lines 6-7. It is not clear how a single signal would provide a “pattern”, and it is not clear how there would be one signal between plural tenants. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite
Claim 20 recites “a pattern of an input/output signal with a host device” in lines 3-4. It is not clear how a single signal would provide a “pattern”, and it is not clear how there would be one signal between plural tenants. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Karr et al, US Patent 11868318.
In reference to Claim 1, Karr discloses a method that includes detecting a ransomware attack on one or more tenants executed in a host by analyzing a pattern of input/output signals between the tenants and a storage device (column 40, lines 8-27, detecting ransomware; column 73, line 53-column 74, line 8, tenants in host); updating a tenant status table including a status of each tenant based on a result of the detection (see column 40, lines 8-27); in response to receiving from the host a write request corresponding to a first tenant, writing recovery information for data recovery in a non-volatile memory based on a determination that a status value of the first tenant is a warning status (see column 13, line 52-column 14, line 28, recovering and rebuilding data in new locations in non-volatile memory; see also column 20, lines 43-47, monitoring and predicting failures, i.e. status such as warnings); and performing data recovery based on the recovery information in response to a recovery signal (column 14, lines 14-28).
In reference to Claims 2-4, Karr further discloses logical and physical addresses and an address link to original data as well as recovery flags (see column 17, line 65-column 18, line 42, address space transformations between physical and logical).
In reference to Claim 5 and 6, Karr further discloses writing data corresponding to the write request in a data area of a first page and writing the address link and second recovery flag in a spare area of the first page and mapping a logical address corresponding to physical page address, where the first and second recovery flags are set to the same value (see column 18, lines 19-42, address links; see also column 13, line 52-column 14, line 28).
In reference to Claims 7-9, Karr further discloses determining whether the request corresponds to an overwrite and if the first recovery flag has a first value, and if the request corresponds to an overwrite and the first flag has the first value, setting the address link to a page address previously mapped to the logical address; if the first flag does not have the first value, writing the data and an address link; and if the write request is not an overwrite, setting the address link to null (see column 39, lines 9-46, determining whether to overwrite data).
In reference to Claims 10-12, Karr further discloses obtaining data based on an address link, writing original data to a third page, and mapping a target logical address to a physical page address of the third page (see column 18, lines 19-42, address links; see also column 13, line 52-column 14, line 28).
In reference to Claim 13, Karr further discloses that garbage collection is not performed in a warning status (see column 38, lines 33-57, determining when to perform garbage collection).
In reference to Claim 14, Karr further discloses performing an operation if the status value is a protection status (see column 38, lines 17-32).
Claims 15-19 are directed to storage devices having functionality corresponding substantially to the methods of Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 13, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is directed to a storage controller having functionality corresponding substantially to the methods of Claims 1 and 7 in combination, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights