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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed April 29, 2026 in response to PTO Office Action dated December 29, 2025. The applicant’s remarks and amendment to the specification and/or claims were considered with the results that follow.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination in this application. In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parthasarathy (US# 2020/0134479).
Regarding claim 1, Parthasarathy teaches a container-attached storage facility comprising: a cloud-resident (distributed storage) containerized control module [virtualized controller, 0082 & 0086; see also 0104 for executable storage container such as virtual disk controller 876/826] situated in a Kubernetes Pod [0105, lines 3-5] and a locator service that stores metadata pertaining to node-local storage facilities that form a storage pool, wherein multiple different environments (repository records, files, bucket, storage, etc.) are accessible using at least the locator service [0099, lines 1-9; see also 0091; and a plurality of storage devices organized into a common access space [0057, lines 1-4] and accessible by the cloud-resident containerized control module [0110], wherein, responsive to receiving a storage I/O request referencing a portion of storage addressable by the common access space, the cloud-resident containerized control module redirects the storage I/O request to a storage device of the common access space [0113], the storage I/O request referencing a portion of storage addressable in the common access space[0102, lines 29-35; 0108, lines 1-10], the cloud-resident containerized control module redirects the storage I/O request using the locator service, and the multiple different environments are accessible by the cloud-resident containerized control module using the locator service to determine which storage device in the multiple different environments storage I/O requests should be redirected [0102, lines 20-25; 0108, lines 1-10].
Regarding claim 2, Parthasarathy teaches wherein storage I/O is redirected to at least one instance of the storage devices of the common access space forms a cloud-provided block storage facility [0102, lines 20-35].
Regarding claim 3, Parthasarathy teaches wherein at least one instance of the storage devices of the common access space is situated in at least one of, an on-premises environment, or a third-party (cloud) environment [0004;0033].
Regarding claim 4, Parthasarathy teaches wherein the storage I/O request referencing a portion of storage addressable in the common access space is translated into a long-haul I/O [0027, cloud-based storage incorporates data operations over distance (long-haul I/O not defined in claim)].
Regarding claim 5, Parthasarathy teaches wherein the _ locator service is external to the Kubernetes Pod (156) having the cloud-resident containerized controller module [0105, lines 3-9; containers can (or can not) be part of a pod (e.g. Kubernetes)].
Regarding claim 6, Parthasarathy further wherein the external locator service comprises a distributed metadata (name/key/etc.) service module [0099,lines 1-9; 0102].
Regarding claim 7, Parthasarathy teaches wherein the storage I/O request referencing a portion of storage addressable by the common access space is translated from a first protocol into a second protocol [0086; iSCSI to virtual disk communication and translation].
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar subject matter to that of claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 10 and 18 recites similar subject matter to that found in claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claims 11 and 19 recite similar subject matter to that of claim 3, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claims 12 and 20 recite similar subject matter to that of claim 4, and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 13 recites similar subject matter to that of claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 14 recites similar subject matter to that of claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 15 recites similar subject matter to that of claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parthasarathy (US# 2020/0134479) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 8, Parthasarathy teaches iSCSI storage protocol for devices [0086, 0110], but fails to teach wherein the first protocol is iSCSI and the second protocol is SONET. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that protocol translating between iSCSI and SONET would solve the problem of long distance communication linking that iSCSI lacks, where SONET provides the backbone and infrastructure for routing the iSCSI IP traffic beyond standard IP networks to users at great distance from each other. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this teaching. 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 storage translation system of Parthasarathy to include the iSCSI to SONET protocol translation because of the benefit disclosed supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed towards the claim amendments, Applicant is directed towards the Examiner’s statements found in the Interview Summary of April 30, 2026. The Examiner indicated in the 4/30/26 response that large portions of previously rejected claims were moved to at least claim 1. Furthermore, claim 1 does not detail what comprises “environments” or the “locator service”, and as such a broad and reasonable interpretation of the claimed subject matter was used as the basis for the prior art rejection. Those limitations not previously recited in an associated claim are rejected in light of a broad and reasonable interpretation of the claim language as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Brian R. Peugh whose telephone number is (571) 272-4199. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez, phone number 571-270-5935, can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
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).
/BRIAN R PEUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights