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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant's amendments filed 30 May April 2026. Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 20 have been amended according to Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1 and 21 have been cancelled and new claim 22 has been added. Accordingly, claims 2-20 and 22 remain pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Interview Request -
Examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s representative on 23 June 2026, 25 June 2026 and 26 June 2026 as requested in Applicant’s communications to discuss outstanding issues to move the case further toward allowance. It appears new independent claim 22, which has been rejected below, does not include the allowable subject matter amended into allowed independent claims 2 and 20, which Applicant indicates similarly incorporates (See remarks page 9) the allowable subject matter of allowed independent claims 2 and 20.
35 USC 103 -
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 8 and 9, filed 30 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. In particular, Applicant’s has amended independent claims 2 and 20 to incorporate features of claims 5 and 21.
Claim Interpretation 35 USC 112(f) –
Applicant’s arguments, remarks page 9, filed 30 May 2026, with respect to the interpretation of certain features of claims 2-19 under 35 USC 112(f) was improperly invoked, is unpersuasive. Because the claim limitations recite function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function, i.e. the limitation “logic”, examiner maintains the interpretation of “logic” under 35 USC 112(f) is proper as the remaining limitations do not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited functions.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “logic to manage”, “logic to expose”, “logic to receive”, “logic to send” as in claim 2, “logic to identify”, “logic to store” as in claim 4, “logic to set” as in claim 5, “logic to divert” as in claim 6, “logic to read”, “logic to cache” as in claim 8, “logic to generate”, “logic to send” as in claim 9, “logic to unset” as in claim 11, “logic to send” as in claim 12, “logic to identify”, “logic to send” as in claim 13, “logic to set”, “logic to send”, “logic to determine”, “logic to send” as in claim 15, and “logic to expose”, “logic to receive”, “logic to send” as in claim 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows the following disclosure appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 USC 112(f) limitations: Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and Fig. 6 and corresponding paragraphs [0019]-[0023], [0042], and [0073] – [0083], variously disclosed as a RAID/storage controller, circuitry as hardware or firmware, or embodied by a chip, SoC, ASIC, programmable logic device.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks et al (US 2020/0133896 A1, hereinafter Marks) in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0026220 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 22, Marks discloses a redundant array of independent disks (RAID) controller comprising: hardware circuitry configured to: manage a virtual disk comprising one or more spans, each span comprising one or more arms, each arm corresponding a different physical disk (See Marks, Fig. 1 and [0015], storage system includes a virtual hard drive and [0016], a storage controller 124 including a RAID controller 126 may map the VHD to a RAID array, the RAID array, or span of VHD across the array, comprising multiple non-volatile memory express devices or arms of physical disks);
expose the virtual disk supports read ahead operations (See Marks, [0028] disclosing the pre-fetch command may be represented by the ‘read prepare’ bit or other flag that is added to context attributes of a small computer system interface (SCSI) command—PREFETCH...For the SCSI command—PREFETCH and the Dataset Management command, the applicability of the pre-fetch command may be applied to each range of logical block addresses, or in other words, supporting read ahead);
receive a prefetch command (See Marks, [0015], host 100 may generate I/O transactions 110 targeting a coupled storage subsystem 120 that includes a virtual hard drive (VHD) and [0017] the host 100 is configured to write an NVMe command. In this embodiment, the NVMe command is directed to the storage controller 124 and the RAID array 140 and [0020] & [0021], disclosing the NVMe command 200 includes a request to write the new data and the NVMe command 200 further includes an advisory command and a non-completion command. In this embodiment, the advisory command may be represented by a pre-fetch command), the prefetch command comprising a requested SCSI input-output operation (IO) (See Marks, [0015], host 100 may generate I/O transactions 110 targeting a coupled storage subsystem 120 that includes a virtual hard drive (VHD) and [0028] disclosing the pre-fetch command may be represented by the ‘read prepare’ bit or other flag that is added to context attributes of a small computer system interface (SCSI) command); and
send a completion message in response to the prefetch command (See Marks, [0056] After the command has been issued and completed by the storage controller 124, the storage controller 124, at block 512, writes completion queue entries and generates corresponding interrupts such as the MSI-X interrupt 314. At block 514, the host 100 consumes and processes the completion queue entries in the completion queue), the completion message indicating a status of the SCSI IO (See Marks, [0056] After the command has been issued and completed by the storage controller 124, the storage controller 124, at block 512, writes completion queue entries and generates corresponding interrupts such as the MSI-X interrupt 314. At block 514, the host 100 consumes and processes the completion queue entries in the completion queue).
Marks does not disclose logic to expose an application programming interface (API) indicating that the virtual disk supports read ahead operations.
However, Lee discloses logic to expose an application programming interface (API) indicating that the virtual disk supports read ahead operations (See Lee, [0038] and [0039], disclosing the use of a VPD page to indicate a maximum prefetch length, or in other words, an API as evidenced by Applicant’s claim 3 indicating a VPD comprising the API and Applicant’s specification at [0055], producing VPD with a page including a MAX_PREFETCH_LENGTH field).
Marks and Lee are analogous art directed to improved data storage management techniques. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the virtual disk prefetch storage system of Marks with the API of Lee as storage performance can be improved by enabling the OS to be informed and make use of the various specifications including prefetching capabilities of the storage device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record:
(1) Marks discloses RAID based storage system with SCSI prefetch functionality
(2) Sen discloses the use of an API to disclose device capabilities
(3) Feld discloses the prefetching of data requested by SCSI IO commands and caching the prefetched data for host access
(4) Dambal discloses disclosing a host system invoking APIs and obtain vital product data (VPD) from the SCSI driver for the applicable file system,
(5) Lee discloses the use of a VPD page storing vendor specific information about a logical unit and a target device and a maximum prefetch length field,
(6) Vishnuswaroop Ramesh et al (US 2024/0427633 A1) discloses one or more circuits to perform an prefetch application programming interface on one or more storages,
(7) Chawla discloses converting a SCSI protocol value into a DCB protocol priority value, and
(8) Dell Shared PowerEdge RAID Controller 8 Cards For Dell PowerEdge VRTX Systems, User's Guide, 2018 discloses a virtual disk with prefetch capability.
However, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest the combination:
manage a virtual disk comprising one or more spans, each span comprising one or more arms, each arm corresponding a different physical disk, expose an API indicating that the virtual disk supports read ahead operations, receive a prefetch command, the prefetch command comprising a requested SCSI input-output operation, send a completion message in response to the prefetch command, the completion message indicating a status of the SCSI operation; and logic to set a divert prefetch control flag in a virtual device property table (VDPT),wherein the divert prefetch control flag indicates whether the virtual disk can successfully perform read ahead caching, as in independent claim 2.
Nor does the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest the combination:
managing a virtual disk comprising one or more spans, each span comprising one or more arms, each arm corresponding a different physical disk; setting a divert prefetch control flag in a virtual device property table (VDPT) entry corresponding to the virtual disk, the divert prefetch control flag indicating whether the virtual disk can successfully perform read ahead caching; exposing a small computer system interface API indicating that the virtual disk supports read ahead operations; receiving a prefetch command, the prefetch command comprising a requested SCSI input-output operation; reading from the virtual disk the data requested by the SCSI operation; caching the data requested by the SCSI operation in a read ahead cache; and sending a completion message indicating that the requested data has been cached, as in independent claim 20.
Because dependent claims 2-19 depend from and thus incorporate the allowable subject matter of their respective independent claim, they are allowable for at least the same reasons.
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.”
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 EDMUND H KWONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 PT.
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 P. Savla can be reached at 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.
/E.H.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2137
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights