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 .
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-10 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 6 recites “the attribute” (line 19). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites “the attribute of the volume”. (line 19, 20). It is unclear what the antecedent basis for ‘the volume’ is in the claim language, as there are multiple references to ‘a volume’ and ‘a plurality of volumes’. It remains now unclear whether these volumes are associated with each other or are separate and unrelated.
Claim 6 recites “the storage control program provides a plurality of volumes including a compression volume that compresses and stores the data, a non-compression volume that stores the data in a non-compressed manner, or a combination of compression and non-compression volumes” (line 14). The claim appears to have been amended to state compression volumes or non-compression volumes or combination is provided by the storage control program. It is unclear from the original specification and claims how only non-compressed or only compressed volumes could reasonably be understood in the claimed invention. The claims at face appears to be indefinite as claimed, but a rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) may be required should the Applicant contend their invention can perform as claimed with only one of either compressed or non-compressed volumes.
Claim 6 recites “the number of inputs/outputs of data to and from the volume”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims and it is unclear what input/outputs to which volume is being claimed.
Claim 8 recites “a storage control program”. It is unclear whether this new antecedent basis is for a separate and distinct ‘storage control program’ or related to the ‘storage control program’ of the claims from which this claim depends.
Claim 8 recites “the volume”. It is unclear what the antecedent basis for ‘the volume’ is in the claim language, as there are multiple references to ‘a volume’ and ‘a plurality of volumes’. It remains now unclear whether these volumes are associated with each other or are separate and unrelated.
Claim 8 recites, “a plurality of storage apparatuses”. It is unclear whether this new antecedent basis is for a separate and distinct from previously recited ‘storage apparatus’ in the claims. Further it is unclear how the ‘programs’ process data input/output to/from the storage apparatus (line 6 of claim 6) but then this same ‘the data’ is stored in a plurality of different storage apparatuses.
Claim 9 recites, “a plurality of storage apparatuses”. It is unclear whether this new antecedent basis is for a separate and distinct from previously recited ‘storage apparatus’ in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “a storage control program” (line 19 and 20). It is unclear whether this new antecedent basis is for a separate and distinct ‘storage control program’ or related to the ‘storage control program’ from line 13.
Claim 9 recites “the failover” (line 19). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the storage control program” (line 22). It is unclear which ‘a storage control program” is being referred to in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “wherein allocations of processor cores to the storage control program and the data redundancy program are changed”. It is unclear what the metes and bound of “the allocations are changed” in the claims, as the claim early require “while maintaining a ratio of processor cores to be allocated to the storage control program and the data redundancy program”. It is unclear whether the ratio is maintained or whether the allocations of cores is changed.
Claim 10 recites, “the processor” (line 15). It is unclear which of the processors the Applicant is referring to in ‘a processor of each storage node among a plurality of storage nodes’.
Claim 10 recites “the volume including one or more of: a compression volume that compresses and stores data, a non-compression volume that stores data in a non-compressed manner, or a combination thereof” It is unclear from the original specification and claims how only non-compressed or only compressed volumes could reasonably be understood in the claimed invention. The claims at face appears to be indefinite as claimed, but a rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) may be required should the Applicant contend their invention can perform as claimed with only one of either compressed or non-compressed volumes. Further, it is unclear how a single volume is being claimed as being both a compression volume and a non-compressed volume.
Claim 10 recites “a number of processor cores” (line 19). It is unclear whether these ‘processor cores’ are a part or distinct from ‘a plurality of processor cores’ (line 13).
Claim 10 recites “each of the plurality of volumes” (line 22). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is further unclear whether the plurality of volumes is claimed to be a part of or unrelated to “the volume” stated earlier in the claim.
Claim 10 recites, “adding the calculated overheads for each program across the plurality of volumes” It is unclear what is meant by “across the plurality of volumes”, and further what is being referred to as the plurality of volumes.
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 10 is 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 10 recites, “calculating, for each program and for each volume, an overhead based on the basic input/output overhead and the number of inputs and outputs of the data” The original specification states, “the overhead in each program of each volume is calculated from the basic input/output overhead and the number of inputs/outputs of the data” (0106). The specification does not appears to disclose how to make or use “calculating, for each program and for each volume, an overhead based on the basic input/output overhead and the number of inputs and outputs of the data”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 KENNETH M LO whose telephone number is (571)272-9774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830a - 6pm.
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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-9877. 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.
KENNETH M. LO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2136
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights