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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 1, 2025 has been received and entered.
Applicant’s Amendments to the Claims have been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/20/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,429,543 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,954,051. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and patents claim associating virtual machine to region identifiers and processing commands related to the virtual machine with the region identifier.
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 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 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.
In claim 6, lines 2 and 3, “the underlying memory array” lacks proper antecedent basis since it was not mentioned previously.
In claims 12 and 18, line 3, it is not clear whether “an underlying memory array” is the same memory as the memory array and/or the memory device.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DAVIS (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0265083 A1), hereafter referred to as DAVIS’083.
Referring to claim 1, DAVIS’083 as claimed, a method comprising: obtaining, by a host processor, a list of regions of a memory device, each region comprising a subset of physical addresses of a memory array of the memory device (storage system manager 114 serves as the communication agent for disk array 112 and implements virtualization of the physical storage units…aggregate physical storage space provided by the disk drives as a contiguous logical storage space that is divided into set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1); receiving a mapping of region identifiers to the list of regions (set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118…LUN “block” level, where a block is a particular contiguous region in a particular LUN. For example, a LUN block may be represented as <LUN ID, offset, length>, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1); assigning a virtual machine to one of the region identifiers (LUN 118 maintained by a disk array that stores a virtual drive image comprising data that corresponds to an emulated local hard drive for virtual desktop 108; virtual drive image for each of the virtual desktops in LUN 118, see paras. [0013] and [0014] and Fig. 3); and processing write commands for the virtual machine using a region of the memory array mapped to a corresponding region identifier of the virtual machine (control commands (e.g. read and write commands) to disk array 112 at the LUN “block” level, a LUN block represented as <LUN ID, offset, length>…a read or write operation for block <LUN ID, offset, length> in the form of a SCSI operation, see paras. [0014], [0030] and Fig. 1; also note: receives the raw SCSI operations and performs the requested operation (i.e. read or write), see para. [0018]).
As to claim 2, DAVIS’083 also discloses initializing, by the memory device, the list of regions and providing the list of regions to the host processor (Disk array 112 comprises a storage system manager 114 that serves as the communication agent for disk array and implements virtualization of the physical storage units…aggregate physical storage space provided by the disk drives as a contiguous logical storage space that is divided into set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, DAVIS’083 also discloses each region in the list of regions is a fixed sized region of memory addresses (physical storage space provided by the disk drives as a contiguous logical storage space that is divided into set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, DAVIS’083 also discloses the host processor requests a desired allocation of regions prior to the memory device initializing the list of regions (servers 100 transmit data transfer and control commands (e.g. read and write commands) to disk array 112 at the LUN “block” level, a LUN block represented as <LUN ID, offset, length>…a read or write operation for block <LUN ID, offset, length> in the form of a SCSI operation, see paras. [0014], [0018] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, DAVIS’083 also discloses obtaining the list of regions comprises issuing a query to the memory device to obtain a capacity of the memory array and dividing the capacity into the list of regions (view the aggregate physical storage space provided by the disk drives as a contiguous logical storage space that is divided into set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, DAVIS’083 also discloses transmitting the list of regions to the memory device (entries in index and lists, see paras. [0023]-[0026]), the memory device dividing the underlying memory array (note: disk arrays, see para. [0014]) in response to the list of regions (divided into set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1; also note: Fig. 3).
As to claim 7, DAVIS’083 also discloses assigning a virtual machine to one of the region identifiers comprises randomly assigning the virtual machine to one of the region identifiers (set of virtual partitions known as the LUNs (logical unit numbers) 118…LUN “block” level, where a block is a particular contiguous region in a particular LUN. For example, a LUN block may be represented as <LUN ID, offset, length>, see para. [0014] and Fig. 1; LUN 118 maintained by a disk array that stores a virtual drive image comprising data that corresponds to an emulated local hard drive for virtual desktop 108; virtual drive image for each of the virtual desktops in LUN 118, see paras. [0013] and [0014]).
Note claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations of claim 2. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 10 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 11 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 12 and 18 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 13 and 19 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 6. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 14 and 20 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 7. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 17 recite the corresponding limitations of claims 3 and 4. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
In summary, DAVIS’083 teaches the claimed limitations as set forth.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITUS WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached on (571) 270-1023. 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.
/TITUS WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181