DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Remarks filed on 7/1/2026. Claims 1-20 are presented
for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Hall, US Pub.20160299698.
As to claim 1, Hall discloses a method, comprising:
creating, in a storage array (40 fig.3), a plurality of realms (1-N of fig.3), wherein
each realm comprises a logical isolation of a corresponding one or more storage
resources within the storage array and restricting access to each of the plurality of
realms using one or more configurable realm-specific access controls (using a
controller to dynamically designate physical regions to be one of an I-region or an E-
region, for example, the physical regions may take on the attributes of an I-region, an E-
region, or a spare physical regions, fig.1, [0027[ to [0029]).
As to claim 8, Moss discloses restricting access to each of the plurality of realms
comprises restricting access to a particular realm via one or more defined networks
(using a controller to dynamically designate physical regions to be one of an I-region or
an E-region, for example, the physical regions may take on the attributes of an I-region,
an E-region, or a spare physical region, fig. 1, [0027[ to [0029]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1 and 1
respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will
not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale
supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that
the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section
102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hall, US pub. No. 20160299698 in view of Moss at al., US Pub. No.20130145367.
As to claim 2, Hall does not specifically disclose the corresponding one or more storage resources comprises at least one of: provisioned storage or one or more workloads. However, Moss discloses disclose the corresponding one or more storage resources comprises at least one of: provisioned storage or one or more workloads (the realm manager 28 handles the input, setup and configuration of any load and work product distribution logic, see [0041] to [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to
implement Moss's teachings into the computer system of Hall to monitor data
information because it would have enabled custom algorithms to be encapsulated and
incorporated directly into the realm load management models (see Moss' [0040]).
As to claim 3, Moss discloses tracking, for a particular realm of the plurality of realms,
one or more usage metrics (usage and distribution preferences aligned against cost of
processing, see [0054]).
As to claim 4, Moss discloses calculating a cost for one or more usage metrics
(processing cost, see [0054] to [0055])).
As to claim 5, Moss discloses presenting the one or more usage metrics to a user
associated with the particular realm (usage, see [0054] to [0056)).
As to claim 6, Moss discloses performing data reduction across the plurality of realms
(usage and distribution preferences aligned against cost of processing, see [0055] to
[0056]).
As to claim 7, Moss discloses controlling resource consumption by one or more of the
plurality of realms (see [0054] to [0056)).
As to claim 9, Moss discloses wherein restricting access to each of the plurality of
realms comprises restricting access to a particular realm using a realm access key (see
[0028] and [0040]).
As to claim 10, Moss discloses restricting access to each of the plurality of realms
comprises applying an access policy associated with a user (configuring a realm
manager with two or more client determined configuration policies; allowing input, setup
and configuration of the two or more client determined configuration policies through the
use of a design studio application program, see [0028] to [0030]).
As to claim 11, Moss discloses the user is associated with a plurality of access policies
and wherein applying the access policy associated with the user comprises determining
a set of permissions for the user based on the plurality of access policies (configuring a
realm manager with two or more client determined configuration policies; allowing input,
setup and configuration of the two or more client determined configuration policies
through the use of a design studio application program, see [0028] to [0032]).
As to claim 12, Moss discloses copying a database to a particular realm from another
storage location in the storage array (The automatic distributed net cloud node instance
40 creates nodes, which are an automatic replication of a pneuron and this process is
established when volume creases., see [0047] to [0048]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1 and 1 respectively.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hall and Moss as in above and in view of Darji et al., US Pub. No.20220365821.
As to claims 13-18, neither Hall nor Moss specifically disclose copying the
database comprises establishing a replication connection between the database and
the particular realm, wherein migrating the realm preserves the replication connection,
the plurality of realms is encrypted using a data encryption key different than the realm
access key, performing a replication of a particular realm and a failover of the particular
realm and using a data encryption key different than the realm access key. However,
Darji discloses copying the database comprises establishing a replication connection
between the database and the particular realm, wherein migrating the realm preserves
the replication connection, the plurality of realms is encrypted using a data encryption
key different than the realm access key, performing a replication of a particular realm
and a failover of the particular realm and using a data encryption key different than the
realm access key (two or more of the storage systems may synchronously replicate a
dataset between each other, failover process and encryption technique, see [0128],
[0241] to [0242]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Darji's teachings into
the computer system of Hall to control data system because it would have created
secure zones in data centers and cloud deployments that enables the isolation of
workloads from one another (see [0128]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited reference does not disclose “creating, in a storage array, a plurality of realms wherein each realm comprises a logical isolation of a corresponding one or more storage resources within the storage array and restricting access to each of the plurality of realms using one or more configurable realm- specific access controls.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Examiner respectfully point out that Hall (the cited reference) clearly discloses the Applicant’s claimed invention. For example, Hall discloses creating, in a storage array (40 fig.3), a plurality of realms (1-N of fig.3), wherein each realm comprises a logical isolation (designate physical regions) of a corresponding one or more storage resources within the storage array and restricting access to each of the plurality of realms using one or more configurable realm-specific access controls (simplified defragmentation and reduced seek penalties) (using a controller to dynamically designate physical regions to be one of an I-region or an E-region, for example, the physical regions may take on the attributes of an I-region, an E-region, or a spare physical region and benefits recognized by a small storage device, such as reduced seek penalties and simplified defragmentation, can be realized on a storage device with a higher storage capacity while still utilizing smaller shingled regions and smaller guard bands between the shingled regions, see fig.1, [0027] to [0029]) as rejected above.
Applicant further asserts that the cited reference does not disclose “provisioned storage or one or more workloads”.
Examiner respectfully point out that Hall discloses provisioned storage (determine a plurality of realms in data storage (12 fig.1)), see [0027] to [0029]) or one or more workloads (OR statement).
As a result, cited prior art does disclose a system and method, as broadly claimed by the Applicants. Applicants clearly have still failed to identify specific claim limitations that would define a clearly patentable distinction over prior art.
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 Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-
3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m.
to 5:00 P.m.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Cheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Awww.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.
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights