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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 3/27/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-051584 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
Claims 1, 3, 6 recite “failure sign monitoring unit” followed by recited functions.
The corresponding structure and algorithms for the recited functions is disclosed by the specification in paragraphs 0041-0043, et al.
Claims 1, 8, 9 recite “control unit” followed by recited functions.
The corresponding structure and algorithms for the recited functions is disclosed by the specification in paragraphs 0041, 0055, et al.
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 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.
The term “velocity of recovery” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “velocity of recovery” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “certainty of the redundancy” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certainty” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-2, 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Hicken et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US2004/0153727A1.
As per claim 1, Hicken teaches a storage system comprising: a plurality of controllers each including a cache memory and having a redundant configuration; and a drive configured to allow cache data of the cache memory to be stored therein (¶ 0022-0023), wherein the controller includes a failure sign monitoring unit configured to acquire information on a state of the cache memory, and monitor and detect a sign of an irreparable failure in the cache memory based on the acquired information (¶ 0027), and a control unit configured to copy or move the cache data in which redundancy is lost to a predetermined saving destination when the failure sign monitoring unit detects the sign of the failure (¶ 0011, 0028).
As per claim 2, Hicken teaches the storage system according to claim 1, wherein the cache data in which the redundancy is lost is the cache data that is not duplicated because another controller having a redundant configuration with respect to the controller is in an inoperable state (¶ 0034).
As per claim 7, Hicken teaches the storage system according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined saving destination of the cache data in which the redundancy is lost is a cache data saving memory in an own controller, the cache memory of another controller in a second cluster having a redundant configuration with respect to a first cluster including the own controller and another controller having a redundant configuration with respect to the own controller, or the drive (¶ 0011, 0028, 0031).
As per claim 8, Hicken teaches the storage system according to claim 7, wherein when a velocity of recovery of the redundancy of the cache data is emphasized, the control unit preferentially selects first redundancy recovery processing that is processing of copying the cache data in which the redundancy is lost to the cache memory of the other controller of the second cluster (¶ 0011, 0028, 0031).
As per claim 10, Hicken teaches a method for controlling a storage system including a plurality of controllers each including a cache memory and having a redundant configuration, and a drive configured to allow cache data of the cache memory to be stored therein, the method comprising: by the controller, a procedure of acquiring information on a state of the cache memory, and monitoring and detecting a sign of an irreparable failure in the cache memory based on the acquired information; and a procedure of copying or moving the cache data in which redundancy is lost to a predetermined saving destination when detecting the sign of the failure (¶ 0022-0023, 0027, 0011, 0028, see claim 1).
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hichman in view of Alam et al. US2022/0139488A1
As per claim 3, Hickman teaches the storage system according to claim 2. Alam teaches wherein the failure sign monitoring unit acquires information on an occurrence pattern of a correctable error in the cache memory as the information on the state of the cache memory, and detects the sign of the failure when the occurrence pattern satisfies a condition defined in advance (¶ 0086). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Alam in the process of Hickman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Alam in the process of Hickman because using the process of Alam would yield the predictable result of performing detection and correction of data in a memory device, an explicit desire of Hickman.
As per claim 4, Alam teaches the storage system according to claim 3, wherein the occurrence pattern is a pattern indicated by the number of occurrences of the correctable error per unit time or a bit pattern of the correctable error (¶ 0086).
As per claim 5, Alam teaches the storage system according to claim 3, wherein the failure sign monitoring unit acquires information on a temperature of the cache memory as the information on the state of the cache memory, and detects the sign of the failure when the temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold range (¶ 0067).
As per claim 6, Alam teaches the storage system according to claim 3, wherein the failure sign monitoring unit acquires information on a supply voltage to the cache memory as the information on the state of the cache memory, and detects the sign of the failure when the supply voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold range (¶ 0093).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman in view of Takada et al. U.S. Patent 8,266,342.
As per claim 9, Hickman teaches the storage system according to claim 7. Takada teaches wherein when certainty of the redundancy of the cache data is emphasized, the control unit preferentially selects second redundancy recovery processing that is processing of moving the cache data in which the redundancy is lost to the drive (column 7, lines 4-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Takada in the process of Hickman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Takada in the process of Hickman because using the process of Takada would yield the predictable result of ensuring cache data is written to persistent memory in case of a failure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113