DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on 19 January 2026.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-22 are pending. Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled. The pending claims have been considered and examined.
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
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 cites “avoid affecting” for the amendment to the claim, unlike the amendment to claims 1 and 12 cite “avoids affecting latency”. It is believed the amendment to claim 21 is a typographical error and should read “avoids affecting latency” and will be considered as such for the purposes of further examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,531,577 in view of t.
Referring to claim 1, patent ‘577 discloses all the limitations, see claims 1 and 2 of patent ‘577, except for “avoids affecting latency of read operations.”
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but no affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the storage device that limits access to writing of the storage device of ‘577 with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Referring to claim 12, patent ‘577 discloses all the limitations, see claims 8 and 9 of patent ‘577, except for “avoids affecting latency of read operations.”
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but no affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the storage device that limits access to writing of the storage device of ‘577 with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Referring to claim 21, patent ‘577 discloses all the limitations, see claims 1 and 2 of patent ‘577, except for “avoids affecting latency of read operations.” While claim 21 of the instant application is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and claims 1 and 2 of ‘577 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is merely an alternative embodiment of a method.
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but no affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the storage device that limits access to writing of the storage device of ‘577 with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Claims 1, 12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,567 in view of Sheffield, U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2013/0080828, hereinafter referred to as Sheffield.
Referring to claim 1, patent ‘567 discloses all the limitations, see claims 1 and 2 of patent ‘567, except for “avoids affecting latency of read operations.”
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but no affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the storage device that limits access to writing of the storage device of ‘567 with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Referring to claim 12, patent ‘567 discloses all the limitations, see claims 8 and 9 of patent ‘567, except for “avoids affecting latency of read operations.”
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but no affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the storage device that limits access to writing of the storage device of ‘567 with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Referring to claim 21, patent ‘567 discloses all the limitations, see claims 1 and 2 of patent ‘567, except for “avoids affecting latency of read operations.” While claim 21 of the instant application is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and claims 1 and 2 of ‘567 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is merely an alternative embodiment of a method.
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but no affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the storage device that limits access to writing of the storage device of ‘567 with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not enable the limitation “avoiding affecting latency of the read operations”. While the specification does mention latencies for writes and read in general, there is no description concerning when the write operations are limited, that the read operations latency is not affected or how this is done, such as entering a read-only or write-protected mode.
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(s) 1,3-12, 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2014/0214447 hereinafter referred to as “Brooker”, in view of English, U.S. Patent 8,312,214, hereinafter referred to as “English” and in view of Sheffield, U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2013/0080828, hereinafter referred to as Sheffield.
Referring to claim 1, Brooker discloses a method of drive health determination and performing rehabilitation operations (See Brooker, paragraphs 0010-0013, and 0092). - A method comprising:
Brooker discloses determining the relative health of a drive based on performance criteria such as latencies, faults, temperature etc. and diagnostics and determining if a drive is unhealthy and making sure performance criteria are being met or failed (See Brooker paragraphs 0012, 0029, 0052, and 0085). - determining a change in performance of a storage device of a plurality of storage devices in a storage system; and
Brooker does not disclose “based on the determination, limiting issuance to the storage device of write operations and allowing issuance of read operations directed to a redundant array of inexpensive drives (RAID) stripe stored by the storage device, wherein the limiting issuance of the write operations avoids affecting latency of the read operations”. However, Brooker does disclose marking a drive such that no new data is stored thereon (See Brooker, paragraph 0014).
English discloses monitoring disks (See English, Col. 1, line 35 to Col. 2, line 4). English discloses monitoring performance of storage system and selecting a disk for preventing writes (See English, Col. 1, line 35 to Col. 2, line 4 and Col. 3, lines 46-67). English discloses the disks in a RAID group with stripes (See English, Col. 6, lines 3-17). English discloses reducing access frequency by preventing write requests to the disk and allowing read requests (See English Col. 1, line 61 to Col. 2, line 4 and Col. 2, lines 42-49). English discloses reduced access frequency can be utilized for other policies such as access failure rate and other parameters (See English, Col. 2, lines 56-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to combine the method of drive health determination and performing rehabilitation operations of Brooker with the preventing write to disks in a raid group of English. This would have been obvious to do because it allows preventing writes to disk in response to access failure rates (See English, Col. 1, line 61 to Col. 2, line 4, Col. 2, lines 42-49 and Col. 2, lines 65-63).
Sheffield discloses storages devices and logic sensing a potential impending failure before the device actually fails (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006). Sheffield discloses the storage device is then placed in a special recovery mode, that no data can be written but can be read, a write-protected mode, thus allowing no writes but not affecting the latency of reads from the storage (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to the method of drive health determination and performing rehabilitation operations of Brooker and monitoring performance of disk and preventing write to disks in a raid group of English with write-protection mode that allows reading of a storage device in response to a potential failure of Sheffield. This would have been obvious to do because it allows copying of all the data before failure and saves the time a full rebuild would require (See Sheffield, paragraph 0006).
Referring to claim 3, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 1) including Brooker discloses determining performance criteria including read latencies and write latencies (See Brooker, paragraph 0012). Brooker discloses determining if there is a difference between read and write latencies (See Brooker, paragraph 0047). - The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the change in performance range is caused by a rehabilitative action performed on the storage device, further comprises: determining that a latency of one or more write operations issued to the storage device exceeds a first threshold; and determining that a latency of one or more read operations issued to the storage device falls below a second threshold.
Referring to claim 4, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 1) including English discloses preventing write requests to a disk and then eventually re-enabling writes to the disk, thus delaying writing to the disk (See English, Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 8, lines 19-28). English discloses data is in blocks of a stripe (See English, Col. 12, lines 46-59). - The method of claim 1, further comprising: limiting issuance of one or more modifying operations by delaying writing, to the storage device, a shard of a RAID stripe write operation.
Referring to claim 5, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 1) including English blocks of stripes are relocated to disks that are not cooled (See English, Col. 12, lines 16-59). - The method of claim 1, wherein limiting issuance of one or more modifying operations includes excluding the storage device from selection for forming RAID stripes.
Referring to claim 6, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 1) including Brooker discloses determining a volume has become healthy and once again storing all types of data (See Brooker, paragraph 0054). - The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the storage device is operating within a defined performance range; and updating a storage operation issuance policy in response to the storage device operating within the defined performance range.
Referring to claim 7, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 6) including Brooker discloses performing diagnostic tests and determining the health of the drive based on performance criteria including write latencies (See Brooker, paragraph 0010, 0012). Brooker discloses determining a volume has become healthy (See Brooker, paragraph 0054). - The method of claim 6, wherein determining that the storage device is operating within the defined performance range comprises: issuing one or more test operations to the storage device; and determining that the one or more test operations are completed within a threshold duration.
Referring to claim 8, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 7) including Brooker discloses some blocks are marked as dirty data block (See Brooker, paragraph 0044). - The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more test operations are directed to one or more logical addresses that have been garbage collected but not reused or unmapped.
Referring to claim 9, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 7) including Brooker discloses a frequency of tests (See Brooker, paragraph 0059). - The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more test operations are issued at a predefined interval.
Referring to claim 10, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 1) including Brooker moving all the data from a failed drive (See Brooker, paragraph 0014). - The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating, in response to the determined change in performance, a drive evacuation for the storage device.
Referring to claim 11, Brooker, English, and Sheffield disclose all the limitations (See rejection of claim 10) including Brooker discloses performing diagnostic tests and determining the health of the drive based on performance criteria including write latencies (See Brooker, paragraph 0010, 0012). Brooker discloses determining a volume has become healthy (See Brooker, paragraph 0054). English discloses pausing disks by removing power so data cannot be accessed and then restarting the disk (See English, Col. 4, lines 1-6). - The method of claim 10, further comprising: in response to determining the change in performance, preventing issuance of one or more I/O operations to the storage device; executing one or more rehabilitative actions on the storage device, wherein at least one rehabilitative action comprises power cycling the storage device; issuing one or more test operations to the storage device; and determining whether the storage device is operating within a defined performance range after the power cycling based on the issued one or more test operations.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1, and 3-9 respectively, see above rejections. Additionally, Brooker discloses a storage system that implements the method (See Brooker, paragraphs 0010 and 0092). Brooker discloses the system includes processors and memory (See Brooker, paragraphs 0019 and 0020).
Claims 21-22 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 3 respectively, see above rejections. Additionally, Brooker discloses a computer readable storage media storing computer readable instructions that are executable by a processor (See Brooker, paragraphs 0020-0021).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages of pages 7-10 of remarks, filed 19 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-12, and 14-22 under 25 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new found prior art, see above rejections.
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 JOSEPH D MANOSKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/JOSEPH D MANOSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 March 26, 2026