Final Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations wherein the storage unit is adapted to filter multicast IP addresses based on at least one of: a vault ID, an object ID, or a slice name range is not described in the specification of the instant application and the specification of provisional application 62/260,735. On page 49, lines 33-34 continued on page 50, lines 1-3, provisional application 62/260,735 recites: Having
received the data access request 382, the DST client module 34 determines a DSN address associated with the data access request. The DSN address includes at least one of a source name (e.g., including a vault ID and an object number associated with the data name), a data segment ID, a set of slice names, a plurality of sets of slice names. However, there is no mention of filtering or filtering of multicast IP messages. Further, on page 69, lines 28-30, provisional application 62/260,735 recites: When the extracted IP address compares favorably to a subscribed IP address, the storage unit stores the one or more encoded data slices for storage by the storage unit and the corresponding slice 30 name for each encoded data slice. The provisional application 62/260,735 only describes filtering multicast IP messages based on subscribed IP addresses and is silent regarding the limitations wherein the storage unit is adapted to filter multicast IP addresses based on at least one of: a vault ID, an object ID, or a slice name range. The specification of the instant application and the specification of provisional application 62/260,735 do not recite the term “filtering” at all.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation wherein the storage unit is adapted to filter multicast IP addresses based on at least one of: a vault ID, an object ID, or a slice name range in the application as filed.
The limitations of claim 7 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 1 under REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, the Applicant argues, “Claim 7 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection and the reasoning thereof, however claim 7 has been amended in order to advance prosecution.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation wherein the storage unit is adapted to filter multicast IP addresses based on at least one of: a vault ID, an object ID, or a slice name range in the application as filed. The Applicant does not provide a rebuttal to the rejection.
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 MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113