DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, 20, the determine, updating covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The provide limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 2, 9, 14, 19 the analyze, determine cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receive, transmit are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 18 the determine, identify, maintain cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17 receive, transmit, provide, software component, memory module are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darji et al., Pub. No.: US 20220391124 A1, hereinafter Darji.
As per claim 1, Darji discloses A storage system, comprising:
a set of storage nodes comprising sets of non-volatile memory modules (pars. 39-42, 88-89);
a storage system controller operatively coupled to the set of storage nodes, the storage system controller comprising a processing device (pars. 39-42, 50-51, 324); configured to:
determine that one or more software components of a first storage node of the set of storage nodes should be updated (pars. 334-336); and
provide one or more updated software components to the first storage node, the first storage node updating the one or more software components non-disruptively (pars. 109, 332, 344, 346; note that par. 109, 332 discloses non-disruptive updates and containerized rolling deployments).
As per claim 2, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the one or more software components should be updated the processing device is further configured to: receive the one or more updated software components; and analyze one or more of hardware configurations and software configurations of the set of storage nodes based on the one or more updated software components (pars. 334-339).
As per claim 3, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the one or more software components should be updated the processing device is further configured to: determine that one or more of a hardware configuration of the first storage node and a software configuration of the first storage node has been modified (pars. 334-339).
As per claim 4, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 3, wherein the processing device is further configured to: identify the one or more updated software components based on one or more of the hardware configuration of the first storage node and the software configuration of the first storage node (see rejection of claim 3, at least par. 334-339).
As per claim 5, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the one or more software components should be updated the processing device is further configured to: receive request from the first storage node to check for updated software components (see at least par. 334-336).
As per claim 6, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: maintain a set of configuration information for the set of storage nodes, wherein the set of configuration information indicates hardware configurations and software configurations for the set of storage nodes (see at least par. 331-336).
As per claim 7, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to provide one or more updated software components to the first storage node the processing device is further configured to: transmit one or more updated software components to the first storage node (see rejection of above limitations as well as pars. 344-346).
As per claim 8, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to provide one or more updated software components to the first storage node the processing device is further configured to: provide the first storage node with a location for the one or more updated software components (see rejection of above limitations as well as pars. 337, 342, 344).
As per claim 9, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: determine that a second software component of first storage node should be removed; and transmit a message to the first storage node indicating that the second software component should be removed (see rejection of above limitations as well as pars. 335, 344).
As per claim 10, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software components comprise one or more of a library, a driver, an application, an operating system, and an operating system module (see rejection of above limitations as well as pars. 231, 331, 335).
As per claim 11, Darji discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the sets of non-volatile memory modules comprises heterogenous storage drives (pars. 41-42, 57-59, 322).
As per claim 12, Darji discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the sets of non-volatile memory modules comprises direct-mapped storage drives (pars. 51, 57).
As per claims 13-20, they are analogous to above claims and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozmen et al., Patent No.: US 10852946 B1, hereinafter Ozmen.
As per claim 1, Ozmen discloses A storage system, comprising: a set of storage nodes comprising sets of non-volatile memory modules; a storage system controller operatively coupled to the set of storage nodes, the storage system controller comprising a processing device; configured to: determine that one or more software components of a first storage node of the set of storage nodes should be updated; and provide one or more updated software components to the first storage node, the first storage node updating the one or more software components non-disruptively (col. 3, lines 40-55, col. 6, first full par., col. 8, lines 8-10, 30-40 and col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 10).
As per claim 2, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the one or more software components should be updated the processing device is further configured to: receive the one or more updated software components (col. 12, lines 59-60); and analyze one or more of hardware configurations and software configurations of the set of storage nodes based on the one or more updated software components (col. 13, line 20 to col. 14, line 14, col. 15, lines 20-25).
As per claim 3, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the one or more software components should be updated the processing device is further configured to: determine that one or more of a hardware configuration of the first storage node and a software configuration of the first storage node has been modified (col. 9, lines 52-62, col. 12, lines 45-50).
As per claim 4, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 3, wherein the processing device is further configured to: identify the one or more updated software components based on one or more of the hardware configuration of the first storage node and the software configuration of the first storage node (col. 12, lines 45 to col. 13, line 20).
As per claim 5, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the one or more software components should be updated the processing device is further configured to: receive request from the first storage node to check for updated software components (col. 16, lines 34-43).
As per claim 6, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: maintain a set of configuration information for the set of storage nodes, wherein the set of configuration information indicates hardware configurations and software configurations for the set of storage nodes (col. 3, lines 40-55, col. 6, first full par., col. 8, lines 8-10, 30-40 and col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 10).
As per claim 7, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to provide one or more updated software components to the first storage node the processing device is further configured to: transmit one or more updated software components to the first storage node (col. 11, lines 6-7, col. 12, lines 59-60).
As per claim 8, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein to provide one or more updated software components to the first storage node the processing device is further configured to: provide the first storage node with a location for the one or more updated software components (col. 11, lines 6-7, col. 12, lines 59-60).
As per claim 9, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: determine that a second software component of first storage node should be removed; and transmit a message to the first storage node indicating that the second software component should be removed (fig. 7; col. 12, lines 50-55).
As per claim 10, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software components comprise one or more of a library, a driver, an application, an operating system, and an operating system module (col. 8, lines 59-65, col. 10, lines 5-10, col. 11, line 6).
As per claim 11, Ozmen discloses The storage system of claim 1, wherein the sets of non-volatile memory modules comprises heterogenous storage drives (col. 5, line 5 to col. 6, line 50, col. 7, line 55-67).
As per claim 12, Ozmen discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the sets of non-volatile memory modules comprises direct-mapped storage drives (col. 5, line 5 to col. 6, line 50, col. 7, line 55-67).
As per claims 13-20, they are analogous to above claims and are therefore likewise rejected.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154