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 .
Remarks
In response to communication files on September 22, 2025, claims 9, 14, 18 are amended and claim 1 is canceled by applicant's request. Therefore, claims 2-21 are presently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final on 6. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,111842. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same invention with very little differences in the language.
App 18/827604
Pat. 12,111842
2. A storage system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the storage system to:
1. A process comprising: receiving at a first node in a storage platform a service request that requests modification of a target storage object;
the first node using configuration information to identify in the storage platform a second node that maintains the target storage object and a third node that maintains a backup storage object that replicates the target storage object;
transmit, from a first node to a second node of the storage system and from the first node to a third node of the storage system, modification data to be used to modify a data object;
transmitting data for the modification from the first node to both the second node and the third node;
modify, by the second node and using the modification data, a primary copy of the data object in the storage system; and
the second node using the data from the first node to perform the modification of the target storage object;
modify, by the third node and in response to receiving an update request from the second node, a backup copy of the data object using the modification data received from the first node.
the second node sending an update request to the third node, the update request not including the data; and the third node, in response to the update request from the second node, using the data the third node received from the first node to modify the backup storage object.
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) 2-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar et al. (US Pub. 2009/0327817) (Eff filing date of app: 6/27/2008) (Hereinafter Iyengar) in view of Lee et al (US Pub. 2014/0108347) (Eff filing date of app 10/15/2012) (Hereinafter Lee).
As to claims 2, 12, and 17, Iyengar teaches a storage system comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the storage system to:
transmit, from a first node to a second node of the storage system and from the first node to a third node of the storage system, modification data to be used to modify a data object (see p. 27, “When node s1 attempts to update data object o1, it sends invalidation requests to other nodes that may have copies of o1”);
modify, by the second node and using the modification data, a primary copy of the data object in the storage system (see p. 28-29, node s2 receive S1’s invalidation request…process of updating o1).
Iyengar does not expressly teach modify, by the third node and in response to receiving an update request from the second node, a backup copy of the data object using the modification data received from the first node.
Lee teaches a method for providing partition persistent state consistency in a distributed data grid, see abstract, in which he teaches modify, by the third node and in response to receiving an update request from the second node, a backup copy of the data object using the modification data received from the first node (see fig 2-3, where he teaches node A sending modifications to node B and C and node B send modification to C. Based on current application specification Paragraph 24, “For example, request 322 may provide owner node A with details of the volume or of the data relating to where the request originated, but backup node B may receive less metadata from initiating node C and may still receive some additional metadata in update request 352 from owner node A.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Iyengar by the teaching of Lee, because modify, by the third node…, would enable the method because to keep consistency in a distributed data grid/backups, see p. 13.
As to claims 3, 13, and 18, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the instructions further cause the second node to transmit metadata to the third node as part of the update request, the metadata including an indication of a completion status of the primary copy modification and a checksum to verify integrity of the modification data (see p. 27, When node s1 attempts to update data object o1, it sends invalidation requests to other nodes that may have copies of o1), the third node using the metadata and the data from the first node to modify the backup storage object (see Iyengar abstract, “a message is sent to at least some of said plurality of nodes instructing a node receiving the message to invalidate its copy of object o1”).
As to claims 4, 14, and 19, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the first node identifies the second node and the third node based on configuration data stored in the memory of the storage system before transmitting the modification data (see Iyengar p. 27 and 30, select the node that have the object 1 (o1)).
As to claims 5, 15, and 20, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the third node delays modifying the backup copy of the data object until receiving a confirmation from the second node that the primary copy modification is successful (see Iyengar abstract, “a message is sent to at least some of said plurality of nodes instructing a node receiving the message to invalidate its copy of object o1”).
As to claims 6, 16, and 21, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the first node transmits the modification data to the second node and the third node simultaneously for reduced latency (see Iyengar p. 39, “Updates can be made in a transactional fashion in which one or more updates can be committed at the same time.”).
As to claim 7, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the modification data includes a timestamp indicating when the data object was last modified (see Iyengar p. 27, timestamps).
As to claim 8, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the second node and the third node communicate over a dedicated storage network separate from a client network (see Iyengar claim 1, “sending a message to at least some of said plurality of nodes instructing a node receiving the message to invalidate its copy of object o1”).
As to claim 10, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the update request sent by the second node to the third node does not include the modification data (see Iyengar p. 47, “When a node s3, that has not sent invalidation requests for o1, but has received an invalidation request for o1 from s2”).
As to claim 11, Iyengar as modified teaches wherein the second node sends the update request to the third node after confirming modification of the primary copy of the data object (see Iyengar p. 47, “When a node s3, that has not sent invalidation requests for o1, but has received an invalidation request for o1 from s2”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar and Lee as applied to claims 2-8 and 10-21 above, and further in view of Lambert et al (US Pat 4,890,282) (Eff filing date if app: 3/8/1988) (Hereinafter Lambert).
As to claim 9, Iyengar does not expressly teach wherein the instructions further cause the first node to compress the modification data before transmitting the modification data to the second node and the third node.
Lambert teaches mode compression for data transmission, see abstract, in which he teaches wherein the instructions further cause the first node to compress the modification data before transmitting it to the second node and the third node (see abstract, “transmitted through the network from node A to node B to node C, is compressed in multiple modes.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Iyengar by the teaching of Lambert, because t wherein the instructions further cause the first node to compress…, would enable the method because, “a single compression algorithm is used to assure complete compatibility throughout the network for transmitting and receiving signals.” See col 1, ln 65-68.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 12, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BELIX M ORTIZ DITREN whose telephone number is (571)272-4081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am -5pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
BELIX M. ORTIZ DITREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/Belix M Ortiz Ditren/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights