DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2nd
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Use of the words ‘lane reversal routing’ in claims 1 and 8 (similar problems exists for claims 4, 6,11, and 13 with words, ‘reversed lane configuration’) fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter because the term ‘reversal’ is not clearly defined and without clear definition of the term, the scope of the invention could not be determined. For example, Fig. 1-5 of Instant Application illustrates, Lane 0 of Storage Interface 108 is connected to Lane 3 of Storage Medium 106. Similarly, Lane 1 of Storage Interface 108 is connected to Lane 2 of Storage Medium 106. Other than two connections are crossed, there is nothing in the specification that illustrates that routing reversal cause connection to higher communication lanes. The specification defines both Lane 2 and Lane 3 are higher communication lanes. It appears the reversal is merely labeling scheme, i.e. labelling of Lane 2 and Lane 3 reversed but no other features/characteristics are reversed. For the purpose examination, Examiner will construe the words ‘lane reversal routing’ as mere a labeling choice.
Applicant is required to review the claim and correct all language which does not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundy et al. (U.S. Publication 2004/0236894), hereinafter Grundy in view of Common Knowledge (see Grundy’s Background and Figure 1-5).
Referring to claim 1, Grundy teaches, as claimed, an information handling system comprising:
a storage medium (see Fig. 7, Memory Element 56a to 56c);
a first storage interface (see Fig. 6, Intermediate I/O Interface 53) communicatively coupled to the storage medium; and
a second storage interface (see Fig. 6, High Speed Channel 52) communicatively coupled to the storage medium;
wherein:
communications lanes of a communications port (see Fig. 6, 54) of the first storage interface are routed via standard routing to lower communications lanes (lower speed signal paths 54, see Paragraph 35) of the storage medium; and
communications lanes of a communications port (see Fig. 6, I/O Interface 51) of the second storage interface are routed to higher communications lanes of the storage medium (high-speed channel 52, see Paragraph 35).
Grundy does not disclose expressly a lane reversal to higher communication.
Common Knowledge does disclose a lane reversal to higher communication (see Fig. 5).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a lane reversal to higher communication option of Fig. 5 in to multiple options of Fig 6.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to maintain an old system as a backup system in case new system breaks down and/or maintain a backward compatibility.
As to claim 2, the modification teaches the information handling system of Claim 1, wherein the information handling system is configured to operate in a single-port mode (see Fig. 5; Note, maintaining old single channel for backup/backward compatibility) in which the first storage interface is active, the second storage interface is inactive (Note, mere procedure to keep compatibility), and the storage medium performs training with the first storage interface in a standard lane configuration (Note, mere procedure to keep compatibility during when new system is down).
As to claim 4, the modification teaches the information handling system of Claim 1, wherein the information handling system is configured to operate in a single-port mode (see Fig. 4; Note, maintaining old slower single channel for backup/backward compatibility) in which the second storage interface is active, the first storage interface is inactive (Note, mere procedure to keep compatibility), and the storage medium performs training with the storage interface in a reversed lane configuration (Note, mere procedure to keep compatibility during when new system is down).
As to claim 6, the modification teaches the information handling system of Claim 1, wherein the information handling system is configured to operate in a dual-port mode (see Fig. 6, 52 and 54) in which the first storage interface is active, the second storage interface is active, and a first port of the storage medium performs training with the first storage interface in a standard lane configuration (see Fig. 6) and a second port of the storage medium performs training with the second storage interface in a reversed lane configuration (Note, mere procedure to keep compatibility during when new system is down).
As to claims 8-9, 11, and 13, they are directed to a method to implement the system as set forth in claims 1-2, 4, and 6 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues, While the Examiner contends that one skill in the art would not know what has been "reversed" and that it seems that "the lane or labeling has been exchanged," Applicant respectfully submits that one of skill in the art would understand that lane reversal is mechanism swapping the physical connection order of lanes. That is, the lanes are still sequentially ordered but can be logically reversed.
Examiner disagrees with applicant. There is nothing in the claim that distinguishes what is physical order and what is logical order/reverse. Physical or logical, confusion has not been clarified by the applicant argument. The Instant Application (IA) disclose that both Lane 2 and Lane 3 are higher lanes. The claim 1 recites, “routed via lane reversal routing to higher communications lanes of storage medium. Examiner construed the both Lane 2 and Lane 3 are higher lanes respect to two lower lanes Lane 0 and Lane 1. The claim does not recite that the Lane 3 is higher of two higher lanes, Lane 3 and Lane 2. The claim seems to recite that both Lane 3 and Lane 2 are higher lanes; claim does not recite Lane 3 is highest lane of all four given lanes.
Applicant argues, Examiner appears to interpret the terms "lower" and "higher" as related to signal speed. However, these terms, as used in the claims and in light of the Specification, are not related to signal speed. Rather, as explained above with respect to the § 112 rejection, the terms "lower" and "higher" merely describe the sequential order of lanes of the claimed storage medium (e.g., Lanes 0 and 1 of storage medium 106 are "lower" lanes, while Lanes 2 and 3 of storage medium 106 are "upper" lanes).
Examiner disagrees with applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “sequential order of lanes”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Matter of fact, even the IA fail to disclose that terms “higher” and “lower” are refereeing to merely “sequential order”. And if they are merely sequential order of lanes, then invention is swapping lane labels from Lane 1 to Lane 0 (sequential from left to right)?
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (Lane 0)][AltContent: textbox (Lane 1)]
[AltContent: textbox (Lane 3)][AltContent: textbox (Lane 2)]
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hyun Nam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1725 and fax number is (571) 270-2725. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on (571) 270-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HYUN NAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights