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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 12, 2026 has been received and entered.
Applicant’s Amendments to the Claims have been received and acknowledged.
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 3-5, 11-14, and 19 are 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.
In claim 3, line 4, “outstanding data transfers” lack proper antecedent basis since it was not mentioned previously. Similar problems exist in claims 5, 11, 13, and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BOTES et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0260125 A1), hereafter referred to as BOTES’125.
Referring to claim 1, BOTES’125 as claimed, a method, comprising: determining that a network connection from a first storage system to a second storage system is used by a latency-sensitive application (a plurality of storage systems which the dataset will be synchronously replicated, see Figs. 7-9); and transitioning, in response to the network connection being used by the latency-sensitive application, the network connection from using write commands (commands to read, write, or erase data, see para. [0128]) for data transfer from the first storage system to the second storage system to using read commands for data transfer from the first storage system to the second storage system (configuring one or more data communications links between each of the plurality of storage systems to be used for synchronously replicating a data set, see Figs. 7-9).
As to claim 2, BOTES’125 also discloses the latency-sensitive application comprises synchronous replication (synchronous replication, see Figs. 7-9 and paras. [0247]-[0251]).
As to claim 3, BOTES’125 also discloses transitioning the network connection from using write commands for data transfer between the first storage system and the second storage
system to using read commands for data transfer between the first storage system and the
second storage system (configuring one or more data communications links between each of the plurality of storage systems to be used for synchronously replicating a data set, see Figs. 7-9) comprises: quiescing outstanding data transfers from the first storage system to the second storage system (if a storage system can’t be certain that it is in-sync and communicating with all other storage systems that are in-sync, stop processing new incoming requests to access the dataset, see paras. [0186], [0198], [0226], [0440], [0629]; also note: idle content is the content after any in-progress modifications have completed with no processing of new modifications, see paras. [0185] and [0195]).
As to claim 4, BOTES’125 also discloses transitioning the network connection from using write commands for data transfer between the first storage system and the second storage
system to using read commands for data transfer between the first storage system and the
second storage system (configuring one or more data communications links between each of the plurality of storage systems to be used for synchronously replicating a data set, see Figs. 7-9) comprises: sending a read command from the first storage system to the second storage system to indicate, to the second storage system, to use read commands for data transfer (a particular storage system that receives a read request may service the read request locally by reading a portion of the dataset that is stored within the storage system’s storage devices, see paras. [0194], [0222]).
As to claim 5, BOTES’125 also discloses transitioning the network connection from using write commands for data transfer between the first storage system and the second storage
system to using read commands for data transfer between the first storage system and the
second storage system (configuring one or more data communications links between each of the plurality of storage systems to be used for synchronously replicating a data set, see Figs. 7-9) comprises: quiescing, in response to the read command, outstanding data transfers from the second storage system to the first storage system (if a storage system can’t be certain that it is in-sync and communicating with all other storage systems that are in-sync, stop processing new incoming requests to access the dataset, see paras. [0186], [0198], [0226], [0440], [0629]; also note: idle content is the content after any in-progress modifications have completed with no processing of new modifications, see paras. [0185] and [0195]).
As to claim 6, BOTES’125 also discloses the network connection comprises a plurality of unidirectional network connections (one direction, see paras. [0211], [0251], [0490]).
As to claim 7, BOTES’125 also discloses establishing one or more other network connections between the first storage system and the second storage system in response to a round-trip time between the first storage system and the second storage system exceeding a
threshold (host may select a storage system of the plurality of storage systems whose response times satisfy a predetermined quality of service threshold, see paras. [0508]-[0510]; also note: determine response times, see Figs. 35).
As to claim 8, BOTES’125 also discloses the read commands comprise Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) read commands and the write commands comprise NVM write commands (NVMEe, see paras. [0063], [0092], [0099], [0153]).
Note claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 10 and 18 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 11 and 19 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claims 12 and 20 recite the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore they are rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 13 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 14 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 6. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 15 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 7. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 16 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 8. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the outset, Applicants are reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In fact, the "examiner has the duty of police claim language by giving it the broadest reasonable interpretation." Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P., 65 USPQ2d 1862, 1830, (Fed. Cir. 2003). Applicants are also reminded that claimed subject matter not the specification, is the measure of the invention. Disclosure contained in the specification cannot be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d, 155 USPQ 687 (1986).
With this in mind, the discussion will focus on how the terms and relationships thereof in the claims are met by the references. Response to any limitations that are not in the claims or any arguments that are irrelevant and/or do not relate to any specific claim language will not be warranted.
Applicant argued that ““outstanding data transfers” refers to “write commands for data transfer”.” (Page 7 of Applicant’s Amendment)
Examiner does not agree with Applicant. Write commands do not imply there is/are data transfer(s). Applicant emphasized “data transfer”, however the rejected phrase “outstanding data transfers” indicates multiple data transfers. In addition, there is no mention that there are write commands, let alone write commands waiting to be processed; and thus cannot imply that the “outstanding data transfers” refer to such. Transitioning the network connection is a configuration and does not suggest any attempt for execution of write/read command(s).
Applicant also argued that “BOTES’125 does not describe “a latency-sensitive application” or using the “latency-sensitive application” to transition”. (Page 8 of Applicant’s Amendment)
Examiner does not agree with Applicant. “Latency-sensitive” is a relative and subjective term that fails to provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the term. What constitutes “latency-sensitive” depends on the particular application, user expectations, hardware configuration, network environment, and performance requirements. An application that is considered latency sensitive in one context may not be considered latency sensitive in another. The term remains overly broad because it encompasses a wide range of applications with significantly different latency requirements and lacks a clear boundary between covered and uncovered subject matter. Similarly to other relative terms such as “substantially”, “minimal”, “efficient”, or “high speed”, the term “latency-sensitive” requires a comparison against an unstated baseline. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain with reasonable certainty which applications fall within the scope of the term and which do not.
In response to applicant's argument that a network connection is “used by a latency-sensitive application”, “using write commands”, and “using read commands”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In summary, BOTES’125 teaches the claimed limitations as set forth.
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 extension fee 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.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITUS WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached on (571) 270-1023. 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.
/TITUS WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights