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
The amendments filed 1/21/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1-12 are still pending. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are amended.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is a recitation of the claims. The claims themselves are the legal bounds and legal description of the invention. The use of the legal phraseology of the claims should be avoided when writing the abstract. The abstract itself should be a short and concise summarization of the invention in its entirety, or at least the key features of the invention that can be summarized in the allotted space. Specifically in MPEP 608.01(b), section I.C which discusses the language and format of the abstract it states “The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided”. While one can make a technical argument the specific terms mentioned may not be used (the argument can be made, but as there is no exhausted list given as to which words would constitute the legal phraseology given, the argument does not have a lot of merit which is why it is recommended to avoid this), the use of the independent claim as an abstract will still draw into question whether or not legal phraseology is being used since the legal description of the invention is being used as the abstract. To avoid this it is best to not copy the independent claim and use it as the abstract. It should also be noted that the first part of the cited sentence states that the form of the patent claims should also be avoided, which it is not if the claims are used as the abstract. The copying of the independent claims (especially the originally submitted ones) as the abstract can also lead to non-compliance with MPEP 608.01(b), section I.B which describes what content should be included in the abstract. Given that the independent claims, particularly the originally submitted ones, tend to be broader than what the actual invention is, they would then fail to disclose a concise statement of the improvement to the existing art that is being presented. In this case, since there is a 102 reference applied to the claims, this means that the improvement that is being made has not been disclosed in the independent claims and therefor has also not been disclosed in the abstract, as it should have been according to the guidelines set up in MPEP 608.01(b).
The objection still stands until the abstract is brought into compliance with guidelines set out in MPEP 608.01(b).
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 5-9 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. Claims 5 and 9 recites the term “the management module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no mention of “a management module” previously like there is in claim 1.
Since claims 5 and 9 are rendered indefinite so too are the claims dependent upon them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al., SPDK: A development kit to build high performance storage applications, IEEE 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science, 2017 (hereafter referred to as Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a management method for managing a non-volatile memory express (NVMe) hard drive, applied to a management module for a non-volatile memory express, NVMe, device, and comprising: driving an NVMe hard drive by invoking a user-mode NVMe driver (Section 1. Introduction, states that the SPDK can use drivers that are implemented in user-space (user-mode)), wherein the user-mode NVMe driver is configured with a remote procedure call, RPC, command interface, through which the user-mode NVMe driver communicates with the management module for the NVMe device, and the RPC command interface is used to enable corresponding device management functions to be performed on the NVMe hard drive based on received RPC commands (Section 2.3. Storage services, states the configuration interface can use JSON RPC meaning the interface is an RPC interface and the commands used are RPC commands that are used to execute management and storage functions. Fig. 2 and Section 2, shows the components of the system which (as also seen in Fig. 2 of the instant application) make up what is referred to as the management module of which the drivers communicate with), registering a polling thread to periodically issue and execute associated RPC commands through the RPC command interface (Sections 2.1 and 2.2, describe the pollers and user space polling drivers which execute repeatedly on every iteration of the main loop until unregistered), acquiring event information of the NVMe hard drive, and executing corresponding processes based on a type of event information (Section 2.1. App scheduling, describe event framework used to execute threads which uses events and reactors to acquire the necessary information and execute the appropriate process depending on the event that takes place), and in response to an operation signaling, issuing and executing the associated RPC commands through the RPC command interface to perform at least one of: configuring the NVMe hard drive based on the RPC commands; or making the NVMe hard drive respond to the RPC commands (Section 2.3. Storage services, as stated previously, several of the commands that can be issued are read, write, unmap, etc. that will require the drive to respond to the command issued. While not explicitly mentioned that this is in response to a signal, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a signal is sent that the device is responding to).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Yang further teaches wherein registering the polling thread to periodically issue and execute the associated RPC commands through the RPC command interface, acquiring the event information of the NVMe hard drive, and executing the corresponding processes based on the type of event information, comprises: executing asynchronous event reception reporting and/or alerting based on the type of event information (Section 2.2 and 3.1, state that the polling and IO operations are done using asynchronous commands/polling).
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Yang further teaches wherein in response to the operation signaling, issuing and executing the associated RPC commands through the RPC command interface to perform at least one of: configuring the NVMe hard drive based on the RPC commands; or making the NVMe hard drive respond to the RPC commands, comprises: in response to the operation signaling, issuing and executing an NVMe hard drive firmware upgrade command, an NVMe hard drive information collection command, or an NVMe hard drive data processing command through the RPC command interface, such that the NVMe hard drive performs firmware upgrade, information feedback, or data processing based on the RPC commands (Section 2.3. Storage services, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the commands can be data processing commands (read, write, etc.) meaning that the drive would respond to those commands as that is the purpose of issuing them).
Regarding claims 5-7, claims 5-7 are the device claims associated with claims 1-3. Since Yang teaches all the limitations to claims 1-3, it also teaches all the limitations to claims 5-7; therefore the rejections to claims 1-3 also apply to claims 5-7.
Regarding claims 9-11, claims 9-11are the computer readable medium claims associated with claims 1-3. Since Yang teaches all the limitations to claims 1-3, it also teaches all the limitations to claims 9-11; therefore the rejections to claims 1-3 also apply to claims 9-11.
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.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Montazeri et al. (US PGPub 2021/0311620, hereafter referred to as Montazeri).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the RPC commands comprise customizable personalized RPC commands.
Montazeri teaches wherein the RPC commands comprise customizable personalized RPC commands (Paragraph [0078], states the protocol used for communications can be JSON over RPC meaning the commands would be RPC commands. Paragraph [0022], states that some of the commands can be user defined (customizable personalized commands). Since both Yang and Montazeri teach the use of RPC commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the commands of Yang with those of Montazeri to obtain the predictable result of wherein the RPC commands comprise customizable personalized RPC commands (as all this does is describe characteristics of the commands and does not affect the rest of the operations claimed).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is the device claim associated with claim 4. Since Yang and Montazeri teach all the limitations to claim 4, they also teach all the limitations to claim 8; therefore the rejection to claim 4 also applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 4. Since Yang and Montazeri teach all the limitations to claim 4, they also teach all the limitations to claim 12; therefore the rejection to claim 4 also applies to claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Yang does not teach the amended limitations to the independent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the specification and claims do not specifically define what the management module is or what can constitute it. Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0045] of the specification state that it can be a hard drive management apparatus, but aside from that there is nothing explicitly stating what the management module actually is. Given this, Yang can still apply as the drivers do communicate with various modules several of which can be construed to be the management module. Therefore the rejection still holds.
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 NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132