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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 3, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 21, 23, 29, 31, 35, and 37 have been amended. Claims 21-25 and 27-40 are now pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29, line 22, it is suggested to have “a memory to store instructions, the instructions is executed by processor to”.
Because “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 11,954,220.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions are obvious variants. Claim 1 of the instant application substantially recites the limitations of claim 1 of Patent 11,954,220as shown in comparison table below.
Instant Application
Patent 11,954,220
21. A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, whether to issue a request to access a container storage volume based on a volume-level access policy and a storage operation attribute of the request, wherein the volume-level access policy defines one or more allowable storage operations associated with the container storage volume; and
in response to determining to issue the request, issuing the request.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein determining whether to issue the request comprises:
denying access responsive to the storage operation attribute failing to meet a volume-level access policy.
28. The method of claim 21, further comprising:
receiving a second request to access the container storage volume based on one or more allowable storage operations and a storage operation attribute of the second request; and
allowing the second request being more restrictive than the request.
A method comprising:
assigning, by a computing device comprising at least one processor and memory, to a container storage volume, a volume-level access policy that indicates one or more allowable storage operations, wherein the container storage volume is presented to one or more containers by a storage management service;
receiving, by the computing device, a request to access the container storage volume;
determining, by the computing device, whether to allow access to the container storage volume based on the volume-level access policy and one or more attributes that comprise a type of storage operation of the request;
responsive to determining to allow access to the container storage volume, issuing, by the computing device, from the storage management service to a storage resource, the request;
responsive to determining not to allow access to the container storage volume, preventing, by the computing device, the request from being serviced by the storage resource;
receiving, by the computing device, a request to modify the volume-level access policy to an updated volume-level access policy; and
denying, by the computing device, the request responsive to the updated volume- level access policy being less restrictive than the volume-level access policy.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine claims 21, 23 and 28 to arrive of claims 1 of Patent 11,954,220 because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Similar rejection also apply to Patent 11,675,503.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 29-31 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0282978).
Referring to claim 21, Kumar et al. teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a processing device, whether to issue a request to access a container storage volume (If the requested access is permitted, logic 204 is further adapted to forward the request to the identified LUN of the identified storage, see Kumar et al., Para. 24) based on a volume-level access policy (control logic to define access permission information (e.g., access control information) associated with each LUN defined by an attached storage, see Kumar et al., Para. 8) a storage operation attribute of the request (querying the LUN access permission structure to determine whether the attached host system has sufficient access permission to the LUN identified in the received I/O request, see Kumar et al., Para. 10, the LUN access permission information comprises a structure in the memory identifying a level or access permission for each of the one or more host systems to access each of the LUNs associated with the target addresses of each of the one or more storage enclosures, see Kumar et al., Claim 5), wherein the volume-level access policy defines one or more allowable storage operations associated with the container storage volume (control logic to define access permission information (e.g., access control information) associated with each LUN defined by an attached storage, see Kumar et al., Para. 8, logical volumes (i.e., for LUNs identifying each of multiple logical devices), see Kumar et al., Para. 6); and
in response to determining to issue the request, issuing the request to the container storage volume (Thus, only if the requested access is permitted will be received request be forwarded (unchanged) through the switching device to the identified storage enclosure, see Kumar et al., Para. 24, whether the identified host has sufficient access permission to access the identified LUN of the identified storage enclosure in the received request, see Kumar et al., Para. 27).
As to claim 22, Kumar et al. teaches determining whether to issue the request comprises issuing the request responsive to the storage operation attribute (querying the LUN access permission structure to determine whether the attached host system has sufficient access permission to the LUN identified in the received I/O request, see Kumar et al., Para. 10, the LUN access permission information comprises a structure in the memory identifying a level or access permission for each of the one or more host systems to access each of the LUNs associated with the target addresses of each of the one or more storage enclosures, see Kumar et al., Claim 5). As to claim 23, Kumar et al. as modified teaches determining whether to issue the request comprises denying access responsive to the storage operation attribute failing to meet the volume-level access policy (Thus, only if the requested access is permitted will be received request be forwarded (unchanged) through the switching device to the identified storage enclosure, see Kumar et al., Para. 24, whether the identified host has sufficient access permission to access the identified LUN of the identified storage enclosure in the received request, see Kumar et al., Para. 27). Referring to claim 29, Kumar et al. teaches an apparatus comprising a memory (memory, see Kumar et al., Para. 20); and a processing device (processor, see Kumar et al., Para. 18) operatively coupled to the memory, configured to, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 21 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 22 rejection.
Claim 31 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 23 rejection.
Referring to claim 35, Kumar et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (memory, see Kumar et al., Para. 20) storing instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to carry out the steps, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 21 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Claim 36 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 22 rejection.
Claim 37 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 23 rejection.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 24, 25, 32, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0282978) in view of McClintock et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,007,779).
As to claim 24, Kumar et al. the storage operation attribute comprises a source of the request (the LUN access permission information comprises a structure in the memory identifying a level or access permission for each of the one or more host systems to access each of the LUNs associated with the target addresses of each of the one or more storage enclosures, see Kumar et al., Claim 5). However, Tian as modified does not explicitly teach one or more geographic access permissions.
Schneider et al. teaches s one or more geographic access permissions
(Locality (L). The location at which the subject resides. This is usually the city in which the subject resides, but can be used for any location-related value, see Schneider et al., Col. 12, lines 27-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kumar et al., to have one or more geographic access permissions, as taught by Schneider et al., to have better scalability with regard to both management of and performance in the VPN (Schneider et al., Col. 22, lines 48-49).
As to claim 25, Kumar et al. does not explicitly teach a data sensitivity level and a security level.
Schneider et al. teaches a data sensitivity level and a security level (attributes of the object such as the sensitivity level of resources and the trust level of modes of user identification, network links, and encryption methods, see Schneider et al., Col. 7, lines 17-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tian as modified, to have a data sensitivity level and a security level, as taught by Schneider et al., to have better scalability with regard to both management of and performance in the VPN (Schneider et al., Col. 22, lines 48-49).
Claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 24 rejection.
Claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 25 rejection.
Claim 38 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 24 rejection.
Claims 27 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0282978) in view of Desai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,509,914).
As to claim27, Kumar et al. does not explicitly teach providing, to a storage management service, information describing data stored in the container storage volume.
Desai et al. teaches providing, to a storage management service, information describing data stored in the container storage volume (applying labels or tags to the data (volumes) based on the instances that generate the data, contents of the data, and/or sensitivity of the data, see Desai et al., Col. 2, lines 35-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kumar et al., to have providing, to a storage management service, information describing data stored in the container storage volume, as taught by Desai et al., to easily and efficiently replicate the applications and data across different regions ( and/or CSPs) of the world. (Desai et al., Col. 1, lines 44-45).
Claim 40 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 27 rejection.
Claims 28, 34 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0282978) in view of McClintock et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,007,779).
As to claim 28, Kumar et al. teaches receiving a second request to access the container storage volume based on one or more allowable storage operations and a storage operation attribute of the second request (generate requests for access to LUNs defined on one or more storage enclosures 108 and 110, see Kumar et al., Para. 15).
However, Kumar et al. as modified does not explicitly teach
allowing the second request being more restrictive than the request.
McClintock et al. teaches allowing the second request being more restrictive than the request (More restrictive access rights may be granted, see McClintock et al., Col. 19, lines 2-3, if a user is located at a public place, such as an airport, he may be associated with a higher risk of compromise and therefore granted a more restrictive set of access rights than if he is at a private or semi-private place, such as at home or office, see McClintock et al., Col. 19, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kumar et al., to have allowing the second request being more restrictive than the request, as taught by McClintock et al., to improve user experience and reducing administrative costs (McClintock et al., Col. 4, lines 19-20).
Claim 34 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 28 rejection.
Claim 39 is rejected under the same rationale as stated in the claim 28 rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/3/2026 with respect to claims 21, 29 and 35 have been considered and they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights