DETAILED ACTION
Re Application No. 18/582528, this action responds to the amended claims dated 02/17/2026.
At this point, claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2026 and 12/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments dated 02/17/2026. Applicant has requested Examiner to hold the rejections in abeyance. Accordingly, Examiner’s double patenting rejections of claims 1-20 presented in the final rejection dated 04/14/2025 are maintained. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the current amendments are sufficient to render the claims distinct from the ‘756 Patent and Jakobsson. In response, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but is not deemed persuasive, for the reasons noted in Examiner’s non-final rejection dated 11/17/2025.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wideman (US 2012/0102288 A1) in view of Jakobsson (US 11418402 B1).
Re claim 16, Wideman discloses the following:
memory […] having a storage capacity (Fig. 1, memory partitions 12A-D). The memory partitions contain storage resources (storage capacity);
a host interface configured to communicate with a host system (Fig. 1). The storage library system communicates with respective hosts over respective host interfaces;
a […] interface connected to a logic circuit configured to implement a […] manager (Fig. 1). Another host application (manager) is connected over an interface;
wherein the apparatus is configured to service the host system using a first portion of the storage capacity; and (¶ 1). Each host system has its own dedicated partition (e.g. first portion of the storage capacity) to service its storage requirements;
wherein the […] manager is configured to [perform activities] using a second storage of the storage capacity different from the first portion of the storage capacity (Fig. 1; ¶ 1). Each host application performs activities on its respective partition; accordingly, a second host application (manager) performs activities on its respective partition (second storage). The two partitions (portions) are different from each other.
Jakobsson discloses the following:
a network interface connected to a logic circuit configured to implement a proof of space manager […] (col. 7, line 63 to col. 8, line 9; col. 35, line 63 to col. 36, line 5). The computer contains logic that implements proof of space activities; therefore, the logic is a “proof of space manager” (col. 7, line 63 to col. 8, line 9). The computer logic includes a processing device comprising a network interface (col. 35, line 63 to col. 36, line 5);
wherein the proof of space manager is configured to use the network interface to participate in a cryptocurrency network using a […] portion of the storage capacity (col. 1, lines 19-31; col 7, line 63 to col. 8, line 9). The computer logic participates in proof of space network activities using the graphs stored in the storage capacity (column 7, line 63 to col. 8, line 9). This is a cryptocurrency mining activity (col. 1, lines 19-31);
wherein the proof of space manager is configured to communicate with a plurality of devices in a cryptocurrency network via the network interface (col. 1, lines 19-31; col. 37, lines 3-14). The network is a cryptocurrency mining network (col. 1, lines 19-31). It may comprise a plurality of processing devices (plurality of devise) that communicate over a network (col. 37, lines 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the storage reallocation system of Wideman to store proof-of-space plots, as in Jakobsson, because it would be applying a known technique to a device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Wideman discloses a storage system wherein each host application maintains its own set of storage resources in a storage pool, which is ready for the improvement of a host using a storage partition to store proof of space data. Jakobsson discloses a host proof-of-space application which stores proof of space graphs (plots), which is applicable to the partitioned storage system of Wideman. It would have been obvious to modify the storage partitioning and reallocation of Wideman to store proof of space data, as in Jakobsson, because it would yield the predictable result of isolating the proof of space activities from the other hosts.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wideman in view of Jakobsson, further in view of Shukla et al (US 2022/0377054 A1).
Re claim 17, Wideman and Jakobsson disclose the apparatus of claim 16, and Wideman further discloses that the first portion of the storage capacity is a first [storage] allocated by the host system; and wherein the […] manager is configured to allocate a second portion of the storage capacity as a second [storage] (¶ 1). Each host application, including a first host (host system) and second host (manager) is allocated a respective storage partition (first storage, second storage).
Jakobsson discloses the proof of space manager (col. 7, line 63 to col. 8, line 9). See claim 16 above.
Shukla discloses that the first portion of the storage capacity is a first namespace […] allocate the second portion of the storage capacity as a second namespace (¶ 41). A plurality of namespaces are allocated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the processing device of Wideman (combined with Jakobsson) to be configured using a firmware, as in Shukla, because it would be applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. Wideman (combined with Jakobsson) discloses logic (processing device) to perform the claimed functionality, which is ready for the improvement of configuring said logic with firmware. Shukla discloses a technique of using firmware to configure hardware, which is applicable to the storage system of Wideman and Jakobsson. It would have been obvious to utilize the firmware of Shukla to configure the logic of Wideman (combined with Jakobsson), because it would yield the predictable result that the functionality of the storage system could be adjusted by updating the firmware.
Re claim 18, Wideman, Jakobsson, and Shukla disclose the apparatus of claim 17, and Wideman further discloses that the apparatus is configured to prevent the host system from accessing the second [storage] and prevent the [activities] from accessing the first [storage] (¶ 1). Each host application has its own dedicated storage partition, and is prevented from accessing the other partitions.
Jakobsson discloses the cryptocurrency network (col. 1, lines 19-31). See claim 16 above.
Shukla discloses the second namespace and […] the first namespace (¶ 41). See claim 16 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Wideman, Jakobsson, and Shukla, for the reasons noted in claim 17 above.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPLICANT
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered.
As required by M.P.E.P. § 707.07(f), a response to these arguments appears below.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-1]).
Re claim 16, Applicant argues Wideman and Jakobsson do not disclose the newly amended limitation “wherein the proof of space manager is configured to communicate with a plurality of devices in the cryptocurrency network via the network interface. In response, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but is not deemed persuasive. As noted above, Jakobsson discloses that the network is a cryptocurrency mining network (col. 1, lines 19-31). It may comprise a plurality of processing devices (plurality of devise) that communicate over a network (col. 37, lines 3-14). Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that Jakobsson disclosed only a single device communicating with a single device over a network, as alleged by Applicant, this would still not be a patentable distinction, as it would be a mere duplication of parts to add additional network devices to connect to the proof of space manager (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Finally, as noted above, claim 16 remains subject to a double patenting rejection. For all these reasons, it is not in condition for allowance.
Re claims 17-20, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence upon claim 16 above. Accordingly, Applicant is directed to Examiner’s comments regarding claim 16 above.
All arguments by the Applicant are believed to be covered in the body of the office action; thus, this action constitutes a complete response to the issues raised in the remarks dated 02/17/2026.
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.
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have received an action on the merits and are subject to a final rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached on 571-272-3978. 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.
/CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132