DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action, based on application 18/659,055 filed 9 May 2024, is filed in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks filed 3 October 2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, presented 3 October 2025 in response to the Office Action mailed 4 June 2025, have been fully considered below.
Claim Objections
The Office withdraws the previously issued objections in view of applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The applicant traverses the indefiniteness rejection alleging the written description implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly links the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Office has fully reviewed applicant’s remarks; however, is not persuaded and maintains the rejection of record. While the Office has initially presented an indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the Office may hold the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lacking adequate written description and further rejected for not being sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim.
“detection module”
The applicant alleges the detection module “comprises ‘an identifier such as a unique identifier (UUID) on the storage device’” and further comprises step 204 which performs a determining step. The Office notes ¶[0015] of the originally filed specification states “the system 100 comprises a detection module in step 202 which leverages an identifier such as a unique identifier (UUID) on the storage device 200”. As such, the Office refutes applicant’s assertion that the claimed ‘detection module’ necessarily comprises (or ‘is’) an identifier. The Office reminds the applicant the following of MPEP 2181(II)(B):
Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1405-06 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2009).
In this case, the Office notes that while the specification mentions a system that comprises a software layer including physical storage hardware, the specification is devoid of any reference to any general purpose or specialized computer and further is devoid of any structure or materials that comprise the ‘detection module’ (e.g. the physical aspect of the ‘detection module’ aka what ‘it is’ opposed to what ‘it does’). The Office asserts the cited portions of ¶[0015-0016] merely recite the functions performed by the ‘detection module’ and fail to include any description as to any ‘means’ for performing the functions.
‘blocking module’, ‘alert module’, ‘tracking module’, ‘detection system’
Applicant’s remarks cite ¶[0017], ¶[0021], and ¶[0022] for disclosing the corresponding ‘means’ to the claimed functions. Similar to the analysis of the ‘detection module’ above, the Office asserts the cited portions merely recite the functions performed by each respective ‘module’ or ‘system’ and fail to include any description as to any ‘means’ for performing the functions.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Office withdraws the previously issued rejections in view of applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the features of applicant’s claims as amended. The Office has fully reviewed applicant’s remarks; however, is not persuaded and maintains a prior art rejection to the claims for reasons now presented responsive to applicant’s amendment.
Claim 1
The applicant alleges SLAIGHT’s disclosure is ‘fundamentally different’ from applicant’s invention. The applicant alleges the following:
Rather, here—unlike with SLAIGHT’s block mirroring logic, there is no need to have access to the original data and mirrored or copied data. The present invention simply checks to see if the data was previously copied by checking a “flag” in a software database associated with the storage device against a last action performed on the storage device (such as through a unique identifier (UUID), as in the amended claims). If its content was previously copied, erasing or sanitizing of the device is enabled; and if not previously copied, the sanitize or secure erase operation is disabled. These features are not present in SLAIGHT. Indeed, the stated purpose of the block mirroring in SLAIGHT is for “improving device latency consistency” (see ¶ [0002], [0091 ]-[0093] ). This has nothing to do with the purpose and/or functionality of the detection module and blocking module of the present invention, which, as claimed, is to disable or enable secure erase operations, through use of a unique identifier, and to prevent accidental or unintentional erasure of the data before the data is copied and verified through such integration.
In response, while the applicant alleges the present invention accomplishes a check on data as to whether the data was previously copied via use of a flag, the Office respectfully notes the claim is merely limited to “wherein said detection module is also configured to detect … whether said data has previously been copied” and is not further limited to any particular methods set forth in the remarks. As such, 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., determining whether data was previously copied by checking a ‘flag’ against a last action) 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).
The applicant further alleges ALSALIM’s disclosure is ‘fundamentally different’ from applicant’s invention. The applicant alleges the following:
ALSALIM does not disclose a detection module configured to identify if a storage device is being introduced to the system for the first time or has been introduced previously, through use of a unique identifier (UUID) as now claimed. Instead, ALSALIM describes a method wherein a system complex key (SCK) and System Identification along with system complex key password (SCKP) is used to prevent erasure when SCKP and SCK match. (See { [0053]: “To safely insert the storage device: an SCKP can be entered that matches the SCK kept in the storage device; a command can be executed to reutilize the storage device”.) In the present invention, a unique identifier on the storage device is used to identify its history. Through this unique identifier, detection module determines whether the storage device is a new device being introduced into the integrated hardware and software system, or a device that has been used under the system before. If it is a new device, the system will record its unique identifier in the software application. Thus, contrary to ALSALIM, the present invention simply relies on a unique identifier (such as a serial number of the storage device) without requiring a password and any matching (such as ALSALIM’s SCKP and SCK match) to allow erasure or protection.
In response, again, the Office respectfully notes the claim is merely limited to “a detection module configured, through use of a unique identifier (UUID), to identify if a storage device is being introduced … for a first time or has been introduced previously” and is not further limited to any particular methods set forth in the remarks. While applicant’s remarks state the present invention relies on a unique identifier for performing the new device determination, the Office notes applicant’s remarks fail to recite how the unique identifier is used to make the determination. The Office submits the claimed invention merely requires the use of a unique identifier to perform the identification step and is not further limited to any recording of the unique identifier in the software application or further limited to not requiring a password or any matching.
Claim 9
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 9 on grounds similarly presented in the traversal to the rejection of Claim 1. The applicant alleges the following:
SLAIGHT’s block mirroring logic requires access to both the original and mirrored data at the time of checking, while the mechanism of the present invention does not require the copied data to be available while the data is checked (through a unique identifier) to determine if the data was previously copied or not.
Again, the Office respectfully notes Claim 9 simply isn’t directed to any determination or checking of data as to whether the data was previously copied or not. Furthermore, regarding a usage of a unique identifier, the claim is merely limited to determine whether a storage device is a new device or has been used before using the unique identifier.
The applicant further alleges SLAIGHT fails to disclose “perform ingestion on said data and perform checksum verification on said data”; however, yet again, applicant alleges SLAIGHT is not pertinent because SLAIGHT allegedly performs the functions in a different manner than applicant. Again, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reliance on the storage identifier and status of its flag for performing the functions of ingestion and checksum verification) 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).
Claim 2
The applicant traverses the rejection to Claim 2 alleging the following:
There is simply nothing to suggest that one of ordinary skill would look to SLAIGHT or its reference in §] [0080] (which pertains to data recovery that is not claimed here), that the “drive additionally returns a message or indication that a read failure occurred” to modify the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM to reach the invention in claim 2.
In response, the Office respectfully submits applicant’s remarks fail to address the grounds of rejection supported by evidence and a reasoned explanation including a motivation statement as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would make the modification.
Claim 3
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 3 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the system of Claim 1 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 1; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 1 above. The applicant further alleges SLAIGHT does not disclose the detection module of Claim 3 identifying whether said data has been copied through a unique identifier on said storage device. The Office maintains cited prior art teaches the additional feature of ‘wherein the unique identifier is a serial number of said storage device’ based on additional reasons now presented in the grounds of rejection to the claim below.
Claim 4
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 4 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the system of Claim 1 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 1; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 1 above. The applicant further alleges cited prior art fails to disclose any override functionality alleging SLAIGHT’s teachings of not issuing simultaneous active erase operations is not the same as the present invention of the overriding functionality that allows erasing or sanitizing of the device. Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive as the Office maintains SLAIGHT’s disclosure teaches that the block mirroring logic prevention may be overridden or circumvented by not issuing simultaneous active erase operations.
Claim 5
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 5 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the system of Claim 1 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 1; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 1 above. The applicant further alleges cited prior art fails to disclose the additional limitations of the claim as the present invention relies on a unique identifier without requiring a password to identify a storage device being introduced into the system. In response, the Office maintains ALSALIM’s SCK meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant’s claimed ‘unique identifier’ and notes applicant’s remarks fail to present any arguments as to how the ‘unique identifier’ is limited such that the term is not met by ALSALIM’s SCK.
Claim 7
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 7 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the system of Claim 1 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 1; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 1 above. The applicant further alleges SLAIGHT’s ‘checksum capabilities’ are in areas not pertinent to the checksum functionality of the present invention e.g. performing data copy or ingest and verification using a checksum mechanism before securely erasing or sanitizing the storage device. In response, Claim 7 is merely limited to detection as to whether checksum verification has previously been performed on said data. 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 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).
Claim 8
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 8 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the system of Claim 2 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 2; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 2 above. The applicant further alleges ALSALIM’s ‘event notification’ does not specifically disclose any user interface on a storage device. In response, the Office notes a ‘user interface’ may be defined as ‘the point where humans interact with machines’ with ‘its purpose to facilitate seamless communication, enabling users to perform tasks intuitively’. The Office asserts ALSALIM’s ‘event notification’ anticipates a UI via a visual indicator since ALSALIM’s notifications include a video message.
Claim 11
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 11 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the mechanism of the claim based on reasons similarly stated in the traversal of Claim 4; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 4 above.
Claim 12
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 12 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the mechanism of the claim based on reasons similarly stated in the traversal of Claim 8; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 8 above.
Claim 13
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 13 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the mechanism of Claim 9 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 9; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 9 above. The Office maintains ALSALIM’s teaching of automatically sanitizing the storage device at ¶[0054] further discloses the purpose of doing so would be to render its contents inaccessible or unusable. As such, the Office maintains contents were ‘previously ingested’ meeting the limitations of the claim.
Claim 14
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 14 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the mechanism of the claim based on reasons similarly stated in the traversal of Claim 7; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 7 above.
Claim 6
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 6 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the system of Claim 1 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 1; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 1 above. The applicant alleges SPARKS is not analogous art since SPARKS teaching at ¶[0051] allegedly has nothing to do with an secure erase functionality. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the grounds of rejection state the motivation.
Claim 10
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 10 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the mechanism of Claim 9 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 9; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 9 above. The applicant further alleges SPARKS does not disclose the database as claimed configured to store the status of the last action performed. The Office maintains SPARKS’s teaching of collecting user information meets the limitation. Again in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the grounds of rejection state the motivation.
Claim 15
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to Claim 15 alleging cited prior art fails to disclose the mechanism of Claim 10 based reasons stated in the traversal of Claim 10; the Office maintains the response to the traversal of Claim 10 above. The applicant further alleges SPARKS does not disclose the unique identifier as claimed. The Office maintains SPARKS’s teaching of collecting user information meets the ‘unique identifier’ limitation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection module”, “blocking module”, “alert module”, “tracking module”, “integrated hardware and software mechanism”, and “detection system” in the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to due to informalities:
Claim 5: “a first time” should be reverted back to “the first time” in response to applicant’s amendment to Claim 1. The Office regrets the confusion regarding the previously issued objection to the term.
Claim 11: “further comprising the step of” should be deleted to improve readability of the claim.
Claim 11: the comma between ‘functionality’ and ‘after’ should be removed.
Claim 13: a comma should be inserted between ‘ingested’ and ‘said’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“a detection module” (Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9)
“a blocking module” (Claim 1)
“an alert module” (Claim 2)
“a tracking module” (Claim 6)
“<said/the> hardware and software mechanism” (Claims 9, 10, and 11)
“a detection system” (Claim 14)
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLAIGHT et al (US PGPub 2014/0189212) in further view of ALSALIM et al (US PGPub 2021/0209234).
With respect to Claim 1, SLAIGHT discloses an integrated hardware and software system for preventing an accidental secure erase or sanitize on a storage device, comprising:
a detection module, wherein said detection module is also configured to detect whether said storage device contains data, and whether said data has previously been copied (¶[0037] – “block mirroring logic to establish a mirrored copy for each data block written to the storage apparatus”); and
a blocking module configured to prevent a secure erase function to be performed on said storage device, by disabling said secure erase operation if said data on said storage device has not previously been copied (¶[0093] – “The disclosed mechanism further provides management for erase activity of the various NAND devices such that two NAND devices having stored the two copies of the same data block are never erased at the same time e.g. via block mirroring logic of the SSD”; Claim 28 – “wherein the block mirroring logic prevents an active erase operation to be issued to both the first one of the plurality of NAND arrays upon which the specified data block is stored and to the second one of the plurality of NAND arrays to which the mirrored copy for the specified data block is stored at the same time …”).
SLAIGHT may not explicitly disclose a detection module configured, through use of a unique identifier (UUID), to identify if a storage device is being introduced to the integrated hardware and software system for a first time or has been introduced previously.
However, ALSALIM discloses a detection module configured, through use of a unique identifier (UUID), to identify if a storage device is being introduced to the integrated hardware and software system for a first time or has been introduced previously (¶[0053] – “the target storage device or another storage device can be safely inserted in the same storage system”, the storage will be reutilized with the same data or formatted and used as a new storage device dependent on matching passwords/keys).
SLAIGHT and ALSALIM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of computer storage management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM before him or her, to modify the controller of SLAIGHT to include the security solution as taught by ALSALIM. A motivation for doing so would have been to secure and protect critical and confidential data on physical storage devices when the storage device is removed (¶[0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SLAIGHT and ALSALIM to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 9, SLAIGHT discloses an integrated hardware and software mechanism for preventing an accidental secure erase or sanitize on a storage device, comprising:
an application within said integrated hardware and software mechanism, wherein said application has a secure erase operation functionality (¶[0093] – “The disclosed mechanism further provides management for erase activity of the various NAND devices such that two NAND devices having stored the two copies of the same data block are never erased at the same time e.g. via block mirroring logic of the SSD”);
a blocking module configured to determine whether said storage device contains data, wherein if said storage device contains data, said secure erase functionality is disabled within said application after said data is detected (¶[0093] – “The disclosed mechanism further provides management for erase activity of the various NAND devices such that two NAND devices having stored the two copies of the same data block are never erased at the same time e.g. via block mirroring logic of the SSD”; Claim 28 – “wherein the block mirroring logic prevents an active erase operation to be issued to both the first one of the plurality of NAND arrays upon which the specified data block is stored and to the second one of the plurality of NAND arrays to which the mirrored copy for the specified data block is stored at the same time …”);
wherein said integrated hardware and software mechanism is configured to perform ingestion on said data (¶[0034] – “The SATA interface is facilitating read and write operations with the underlying NAND flash memories”), and perform checksum verification on said data (¶[0135] – “the DMA engine can insert DIF, or check DIF for encoded data”; ¶[0106] – “The DIF (Data Integrity Field) and DIX (Data Integrity eXtension) are mechanisms used to guard data through T10 type CRC and/or checksum capabilities”).
SLAIGHT may not explicitly disclose a detection module configured to determine whether said storage device is a new device, or a device that has been used before through a unique identifier (UUID); and wherein said integrated hardware and software mechanism is configured to performing sanitize function on said storage device.
However, ALSALIM discloses a detection module configured to determine whether said storage device is a new device, or a device that has been used before through a unique identifier (UUID) (¶[0053] – “the target storage device or another storage device can be safely inserted in the same storage system”, the storage will be reutilized with the same data or formatted and used as a new storage device dependent on matching passwords/keys; ¶[0053] – “to safely insert the storage device: an SCKP can be entered that matches the SCK kept in the storage device”; SCKP = system complex key password; SCK = system complex key {analogous to ‘unique identifier’} – the system will treat the storage device as new or not based on whether a match is made); and wherein said integrated hardware and software mechanism is configured to performing sanitize function on said storage device (¶[0054] – “the storage device can be automatically sanitized”).
SLAIGHT and ALSALIM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of computer storage management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM before him or her, to modify the controller of SLAIGHT to include the security solution as taught by ALSALIM. A motivation for doing so would have been to secure and protect critical and confidential data on physical storage devices when the storage device is removed (¶[0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SLAIGHT and ALSALIM to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 1.
SLAIGHT and ALSALIM may not explicitly disclose an alert module configured to notify a user that said data on the storage device has not previously been copied.
However, SLAIGHT states at ¶[0080] that “a read to one of the drives identifies a failure (block corruption, or other error) which necessitates a repair for the faulty block” and “the drive additionally returns a message or indication that a read failure occurred” which at least suggests a notification may be provided to a user responsive to the detection of any particular condition or event. As such, with the suggestions asserted by SLAIGHT, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration SLAIGHT’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM’s explicit teachings such that a message may be sent responsive to activation of a prevention of an active erase operation with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so is to provide feedback to a user of the functioning of storage so that the user may take alternative actions.
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 1.
SLAIGHT further discloses wherein said detection module identifies whether said data has previously been copied, through a unique identifier on said storage device (Claim 23 – “the block mirroring logic designates one of the plurality of NAND based flash memory components as a first NAND location to storage a data block, and wherein the block mirroring logic designates a second one of the plurality of NAND based flash memory components as a second NAND location (NAND location prime) to store the mirrored copy of the data block stored within the first NAND location” – the address of each location analogous to a ‘unique identifier’).
ALSALIM further discloses wherein the unique identifier is a serial number of said storage device (¶[0053] – “the target storage device or another storage device can be safely inserted in the same storage system”, the storage will be reutilized with the same data or formatted and used as a new storage device dependent on matching passwords/keys; ¶[0053] – “to safely insert the storage device: an SCKP can be entered that matches the SCK kept in the storage device”; SCKP = system complex key password; SCK = system complex key {analogous to ‘unique identifier’} – the system will treat the storage device as new or not based on whether a match is made)
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 1.
SLAIGHT further discloses an override functionality wherein said system permits said secure erase function even though said data on said storage device has not previously been copied (¶[0093] – “The disclosed mechanism further provides management for erase activity of the various NAND devices such that two NAND devices having stored the two copies of the same data block are never erased at the same time e.g. via block mirroring logic of the SSD”; Claim 28 – “wherein the block mirroring logic prevents an active erase operation to be issued to both the first one of the plurality of NAND arrays upon which the specified data block is stored and to the second one of the plurality of NAND arrays to which the mirrored copy for the specified data block is stored at the same time …”; thus, the block mirroring logic prevention may be overridden or circumvented by not issuing simultaneous active erase operations).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 1.
ALSALIM further discloses wherein said detection module identifies if said storage device is being introduced to the system for the first time or has been introduced previously, through a unique identifier on said storage device (¶[0053] – “to safely insert the storage device: an SCKP can be entered that matches the SCK kept in the storage device”; SCKP = system complex key password; SCK = system complex key {analogous to ‘unique identifier’} – the system will treat the storage device as new or not based on whether a match is made).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 1.
SLAIGHT further discloses wherein said detection module is also configured to detect whether checksum verification has previously been performed on said data (¶[0135] – “the DMA engine can insert DIF, or check DIF for encoded data”; ¶[0106] – “The DIF (Data Integrity Field) and DIX (Data Integrity eXtension) are mechanisms used to guard data through T10 type CRC and/or checksum capabilities”).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 2.
ALSALIM further discloses wherein said notification is through a user interface via a visual indicator (¶[0049] – “The event notification can include, for example, an email message, a text message, … a video message, or any other type of alert that can be manifested or reproduced by a communicating device”).
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software mechanism of claim 9.
SLAIGHT further discloses wherein the integrated hardware and software is configured to override said disabling of said secure erase functionality, after determining whether said storage device contains data (¶[0093] – “The disclosed mechanism further provides management for erase activity of the various NAND devices such that two NAND devices having stored the two copies of the same data block are never erased at the same time e.g. via block mirroring logic of the SSD”; Claim 28 – “wherein the block mirroring logic prevents an active erase operation to be issued to both the first one of the plurality of NAND arrays upon which the specified data block is stored and to the second one of the plurality of NAND arrays to which the mirrored copy for the specified data block is stored at the same time …”; thus, the block mirroring logic prevention may be overridden or circumvented by not issuing simultaneous active erase operations).
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose he integrated hardware and software mechanism of claim 9.
ALSALIM further discloses wherein when said sanitize function on said storage device is performed, a user is informed via a visual tag within a user interface (¶[0049] – “The event notification can include, for example, an email message, a text message, … a video message, or any other type of alert that can be manifested or reproduced by a communicating device”).
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software mechanism of claim 9.
ALSALIM further discloses wherein if said data was previously ingested said sanitize function is enabled on said storage device (¶[0054] – “if the storage device is still removed from the storage system after the SCKP is incorrectly entered more than the permitted maximum number of times, the storage device can be automatically sanitized”).
With respect to Claim 14, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose he integrated hardware and software mechanism of claim 9.
SLAIGHT further discloses a detection system to identify if said data on said storage device has been previously copied (¶[0037] – “block mirroring logic to establish a mirrored copy for each data block written to the storage apparatus”) and checksum verified (¶[0135] – “the DMA engine can insert DIF, or check DIF for encoded data”; ¶[0106] – “The DIF (Data Integrity Field) and DIX (Data Integrity eXtension) are mechanisms used to guard data through T10 type CRC and/or checksum capabilities”).
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLAIGHT in further view of ALSALIM and SPARKS et al (US PGPub 2007/0204349).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software system of claim 1.
SLAIGHT and ALSALIM may not explicitly disclose a tracking module to keep track of historical activities on said storage device comprising a last activity on said storage device.
However, SPARKS discloses a tracking module to keep track of historical activities on said storage device comprising a last activity on said storage device (¶[0051] – “when the physical media is played, the player updates the physical media with user information comprising billing data, usage information, and other collected history”).
SLAIGHT, ALSALIM, and SPARKS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of computer storage management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SLAIGHT, ALSALIM, and SPARKS before him or her, to modify the controller of the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM to include the data collection as taught by SPARKS. A motivation for doing so would have been enable tracing of transactions for billing purposes by a third party (¶[0088]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SLAIGHT, ALSALIM, and SPARKS to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM disclose the integrated hardware and software mechanism of claim 9.
SLAIGHT and ALSALIM may not explicitly disclose a database; and, wherein the integrated hardware and software mechanism is configured to store in said database status of a last action performed on said storage device after said last action is performed.
However, SPARKS discloses a database (¶[0049] – “encrypted content is stored in a storage device”; ¶[0060] – “once content has been encrypted, the content and keys are stored in separate databases for security purposes”); and, wherein the integrated hardware and software mechanism is configured to store in said database status of a last action performed on said storage device after said last action is performed (¶[0051] – “when the physical media is played, the player updates the physical media with user information comprising billing data, usage information, and other collected history”).
SLAIGHT, ALSALIM, and SPARKS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of computer storage management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SLAIGHT, ALSALIM, and SPARKS before him or her, to modify the controller of the combination of SLAIGHT and ALSALIM to include the data collection as taught by SPARKS. A motivation for doing so would have been enable tracing of transactions for billing purposes by a third party (¶[0088]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SLAIGHT, ALSALIM, and SPARKS to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 15, the combination of SLAIGHT ALSALIM, and SPARKS disclose the integrated hardware and software mechanism of claim 10.
SPARKS further discloses wherein status of said last action is stored in said database using a unique identifier (¶[0051] – “when the physical media is played, the player updates the physical media with user information {analogous to ‘unique identifier’} comprising billing data, usage information, and other collected history”).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T LOONAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/ERIC T LOONAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2137