DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Claims 3-6 objected to.
Claims 1-2, 7-10 and 13 are rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2024 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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are coextensive in scope.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are coextensive in scope.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 states “preventing, by the access management system, any user from being designated as a member of a set of users with permission to access the RAID controller or the NAT system”. It is unclear how a set of users with permission to access the RAID controller or NAT system would exist if any user is prevented from being included in the set of users. If any user is prevented from being included in the set of users with permission to access the RAID controller or NAT system, then functionally no user is able to access the RAID controller or NAT system. Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 7 and 13 contain similar limitations to claim 1, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 8-12 depend from claim 7, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 7. Claims 14-16 depend from claim 13, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the access management system" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 contains similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0182209) in view of Sen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8359379) in view of Eberwine et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0215654).
Claim 1
Wink (2019/0182209) teaches:
A method, comprising: receiving, at a redundant array of independent drives (RAID) controller, a first set of data including at least first data and second data; […] P. 0068 and FIG. 5 host computing device 502 is an example of NA computing devices; P. 0071 and FIG. 5 storage interface 520 may be a RAID controller; P. 0053 data is transmitted in packets
[…] determining, by the RAID controller, a first non-routable IP address on a local area network (LAN) associated with the first drive and a second non-routable IP address on the LAN associated with the second drive; P. 0054-55 first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller) generates a data packet 306 for transmission to a second NA computing device 304 [a first drive], the packet includes a recipient address 310 [analogous to a non-routable address] containing the IP address 314 of the second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204
transmitting, by the RAID controller, the first data to the first non-routable IP address and the second data to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0054-55 a data packet 306 is transmitted to second computing device 304 recipient address 310 includes an IP address 314, which is the IP address [non-routable address] assigned to second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204
receiving, by a network address translation (NAT) system, the first data addressed to the first non-routable IP address and the second data addressed to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0059 first network device 206 [NAT system] receives data packet 306 from first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller)
translating, by the NAT system, the first non-routable IP address into a first routable IP address for a first storage location and the second non-routable IP address into a second routable IP address for a second storage location; P. 0059 in one embodiment, first network device 206 adds local network identifier 316 to recipient address [analogous to translating to routable IP address]
sending, by the NAT system, the first data to the first routable IP address and the second data to the second routable IP address; and P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100
Wink does not explicitly teach storing first data in a first drive and second data in a second drive.
Sen (8359379) teaches:
[…] determining, by the RAID controller, to store the first set of data in a plurality of data storage drives, including at least a first drive and a second drive; […] Col. 8 line 45 – Col. 9 line 2 and FIG. 2 receives one or more iSCSI PDUs [first and second data]; Col. 8 line 45 – Col. 9 line 2 and FIG. 2 each iSCSI PDUs [first and second data] is addressed to a target storage controller 230; Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 17 and FIG. 2 In some embodiments, there is more than one iSCSI target 230 [each part of first and second drives]
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink with storing first data in a first drive and second data in a second drive taught by Sen.
The motivation being to target more than one iSCSI system (See Sen Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 17)
The systems of Wink and Sen do not explicitly teach preventing users from accessing the NAT system.
Eberwine (2004/0215654) teaches:
[…] preventing, by the access management system, any user from being designated as a member of a set of users with permission to access the RAID controller or the NAT system. P. 0077 The NAT in the user subsystem can only be updated and distributed by the administration function (CMS), thereby restricting update access to the routing capability by any user
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink and Sen with preventing users from accessing the NAT system taught by Eberwine
The motivation being restricting update access to the routing capability (see Eberwine P. 0077)
The systems of Wink, Sen and Eberwine are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they are both from the field of memory systems.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Wink and Sen with Eberwine to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1-2.
Claim 7
Wink (2019/0182209) teaches:
A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method, the method comprising: P. 0068 and FIG. 5 Host computing device 502 may include a processor 505 for executing instructions stored in a memory area 510
receiving, at a redundant array of independent drives (RAID) controller, a first set of data including at least first data and second data; […] P. 0068 and FIG. 5 host computing device 502 is an example of NA computing devices; P. 0071 and FIG. 5 storage interface 520 may be a RAID controller; P. 0053 data is transmitted in packets
[…] determining, by the RAID controller, a first non-routable IP address on a local area network (LAN) associated with the first drive and a second non-routable IP address on the LAN associated with the second drive; P. 0054-55 first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller) generates a data packet 306 for transmission to a second NA computing device 304 [a first drive], the packet includes a recipient address 310 [analogous to a non-routable address] containing the IP address 314 of the second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204
transmitting, by the RAID controller, the first data to the first non-routable IP address and the second data to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0054-55 a data packet 306 is transmitted to second computing device 304 recipient address 310 includes an IP address 314, which is the IP address [non-routable address] assigned to second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204
receiving, by a network address translation (NAT) system, the first data addressed to the first non-routable IP address and the second data addressed to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0059 first network device 206 [NAT system] receives data packet 306 from first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller)
translating, by the NAT system, the first non-routable IP address into a first routable IP address for a first storage location and the second non-routable IP address into a second routable IP address for a second storage location; P. 0059 in one embodiment, first network device 206 adds local network identifier 316 to recipient address [analogous to translating to routable IP address]
sending, by the NAT system, the first data to the first routable IP address and the second data to the second routable IP address; and P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100
Wink does not explicitly teach storing first data in a first drive and second data in a second drive.
Sen (8359379) teaches:
[…] determining, by the RAID controller, to store the first set of data in a plurality of data storage drives, including at least a first drive and a second drive; […] Col. 8 line 45 – Col. 9 line 2 and FIG. 2 receives one or more iSCSI PDUs [first and second data]; Col. 8 line 45 – Col. 9 line 2 and FIG. 2 each iSCSI PDUs [first and second data] is addressed to a target storage controller 230; Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 17 and FIG. 2 In some embodiments, there is more than one iSCSI target 230 [each part of first and second drives]
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink with storing first data in a first drive and second data in a second drive taught by Sen.
The motivation being to target more than one iSCSI system (See Sen Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 17)
The systems of Wink and Sen do not explicitly teach preventing users from accessing the NAT system.
Eberwine (2004/0215654) teaches:
[…] preventing, by an access management system, any user from being designated as a member of a set of users with permission to access the RAID controller or the NAT system. P. 0077 The NAT in the user subsystem can only be updated and distributed by the administration function (CMS), thereby restricting update access to the routing capability by any user
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink and Sen with preventing users from accessing the NAT system taught by Eberwine
The motivation being restricting update access to the routing capability (see Eberwine P. 0077)
The systems of Wink, Sen and Eberwine are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they are both from the field of memory systems.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Wink and Sen with Eberwine to obtain the invention as recited in claims 7-8.
Claim 13
Wink (2019/0182209) teaches:
A system, comprising: at least one processor; memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method, the method comprising: P. 0068 and FIG. 5 Host computing device 502 may include a processor 505 for executing instructions stored in a memory area 510
receiving, at a redundant array of independent drives (RAID) controller, a first set of data including at least first data and second data; […] P. 0068 and FIG. 5 host computing device 502 is an example of NA computing devices; P. 0071 and FIG. 5 storage interface 520 may be a RAID controller; P. 0053 data is transmitted in packets
[…] determining, by the RAID controller, a first non-routable IP address on a local area network (LAN) associated with the first drive and a second non-routable IP address on the LAN associated with the second drive; P. 0054-55 first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller) generates a data packet 306 for transmission to a second NA computing device 304 [a first drive], the packet includes a recipient address 310 [analogous to a non-routable address] containing the IP address 314 of the second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204
transmitting, by the RAID controller, the first data to the first non-routable IP address and the second data to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0054-55 a data packet 306 is transmitted to second computing device 304 recipient address 310 includes an IP address 314, which is the IP address [non-routable address] assigned to second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204
receiving, by a network address translation (NAT) system, the first data addressed to the first non-routable IP address and the second data addressed to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0059 first network device 206 [NAT system] receives data packet 306 from first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller)
translating, by the NAT system, the first non-routable IP address into a first routable IP address for a first storage location and the second non-routable IP address into a second routable IP address for a second storage location; P. 0059 in one embodiment, first network device 206 adds local network identifier 316 to recipient address [analogous to translating to routable IP address]
sending, by the NAT system, the first data to the first routable IP address and the second data to the second routable IP address; and P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100
Wink does not explicitly teach storing first data in a first drive and second data in a second drive.
Sen (8359379) teaches:
[…] determining, by the RAID controller, to store the first set of data in a plurality of data storage drives, including at least a first drive and a second drive; […] Col. 8 line 45 – Col. 9 line 2 and FIG. 2 receives one or more iSCSI PDUs [first and second data]; Col. 8 line 45 – Col. 9 line 2 and FIG. 2 each iSCSI PDUs [first and second data] is addressed to a target storage controller 230; Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 17 and FIG. 2 In some embodiments, there is more than one iSCSI target 230 [each part of first and second drives]
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink with storing first data in a first drive and second data in a second drive taught by Sen.
The motivation being to target more than one iSCSI system (See Sen Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 17)
The systems of Wink and Sen do not explicitly teach preventing users from accessing the NAT system.
Eberwine (2004/0215654) teaches:
[…] preventing, by the access management system, any user from being designated as a member of a set of users with permission to access the RAID controller or the NAT system. P. 0077 The NAT in the user subsystem can only be updated and distributed by the administration function (CMS), thereby restricting update access to the routing capability by any user
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink and Sen with preventing users from accessing the NAT system taught by Eberwine
The motivation being restricting update access to the routing capability (see Eberwine P. 0077)
The systems of Wink, Sen and Eberwine are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they are both from the field of memory systems.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Wink and Sen with Eberwine to obtain the invention as recited in claim 13.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0182209) in view of Sen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8359379) in view of Eberwine et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0215654) in view of Sidebottom et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10200282)
Claim 2
Wink (2019/0182209) teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the RAID controller, a request to retrieve the first data and the second data; P. 0068 FIG. 5 depicts an exemplary NA computing device 212; P. 0070 and FIG. 5 storage device 525 is capable of storing and retrieving data (it is obvious NA computing device 212 would also receive retrieval requests)
sending, by the RAID controller, a request for the first data to the first non-routable IP address; P. 0054-55 first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller) generates a data packet 306 for transmission to a second NA computing device 304, the packet includes a recipient address 310 [analogous to a non-routable address] containing the IP address 314 of the second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204; P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100
sending, by the RAID controller, a request for the second data to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100 [analogous to WAN]
translating, by the NAT system, the first non-routable IP address into the first routable IP address for the first storage location and the second non-routable IP address into the second routable IP address for the second storage location; […] P. 0059 in one embodiment, first network device 206 adds local network identifier 316 to recipient address [analogous to translating to routable IP address]
[…] receiving, by the NAT system, the first data and the second data; sending, by the NAT system, the first data and the second data to the RAID controller; and P. 0047 Network devices 206, 210 are communicatively coupled to NT system 102 to transmit and receive data from other local networks 106 via NT system 102
providing, by the RAID controller, the first data and the second data. P. 0071 Storage interface 520, which may be a RAID controller, provides processor 505 with access to storage device 525
The systems of Wink, Sen and Eberwine do not explicitly teach the global network being a WAN.
Sidebottom (10200282) teaches:
sending, by the NAT system, the request for the first data to the first routable IP address and the request for the second data to the second routable IP address via the wide area network (WAN); Col. 10 line 52-64 translation module 110 [NAT system] translates private address 124 to a unique routable address 122 representing the remote device 202(1) within service provider network 204; Col. 11 line 1-7 translation may be Network Address Translation (NAT); Col. 8 line 61 -Col. 9 line 3 the external network 220 may be a WAN, and is configured to transfer data; Col. 13 line 46-52 flow 120 is rewarded to external network 220
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink, Sen and Eberwine with the WAN taught by Sidebottom
The motivation being it is a well-known instance of a non-local network.
The systems of Wink, Sen, Eberwine and Sidebottom are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they are both from the field of memory systems.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Wink, Sen and Eberwine with Sidebottom to obtain the invention as recited in claim 2.
Claim 8
Wink (2019/0182209) teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the RAID controller, a request to retrieve the first data and the second data; P. 0068 FIG. 5 depicts an exemplary NA computing device 212; P. 0070 and FIG. 5 storage device 525 is capable of storing and retrieving data (it is obvious NA computing device 212 would also receive retrieval requests)
sending, by the RAID controller, a request for the first data to the first non-routable IP address; P. 0054-55 first NA computing device 302 (containing the RAID controller) generates a data packet 306 for transmission to a second NA computing device 304, the packet includes a recipient address 310 [analogous to a non-routable address] containing the IP address 314 of the second NA computing device 304 within second local network 204; P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100
sending, by the RAID controller, a request for the second data to the second non-routable IP address; P. 0059 network device 206 transmits the data packet 306, with the IP address 314 and local network identifier 316, to NT system 102; FIG. 1 and P. 0042 NT computing device 104 is connected to local networks 106 through global network 100
translating, by the NAT system, the first non-routable IP address into the first routable IP address for the first storage location and the second non-routable IP address into the second routable IP address for the second storage location; […] P. 0059 in one embodiment, first network device 206 adds local network identifier 316 to recipient address [analogous to translating to routable IP address]
[…] receiving, by the NAT system, the first data and the second data; sending, by the NAT system, the first data and the second data to the RAID controller; and P. 0047 Network devices 206, 210 are communicatively coupled to NT system 102 to transmit and receive data from other local networks 106 via NT system 102
providing, by the RAID controller, the first data and the second data. P. 0071 Storage interface 520, which may be a RAID controller, provides processor 505 with access to storage device 525
The systems of Wink and Eberwine do not explicitly teach the global network being a WAN.
Sidebottom (10200282) teaches:
[…] sending, by the NAT system, the request for the first data to the first routable IP address and the request for the second data to the second routable IP address via the wide area network (WAN); […] Col. 10 line 52-64 translation module 110 [NAT system] translates private address 124 to a unique routable address 122 representing the remote device 202(1) within service provider network 204; Col. 11 line 1-7 translation may be Network Address Translation (NAT); Col. 8 line 61 -Col. 9 line 3 the external network 220 may be a WAN, and is configured to transfer data; Col. 13 line 46-52 flow 120 is rewarded to external network 220
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the invention of Wink and Eberwine with the WAN taught by Sidebottom
The motivation being it is a well-known instance of a non-local network.
The systems of Wink, Eberwine and Sidebottom are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and from the same “problem solving area.” Namely, they are both from the field of memory systems.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Wink and Eberwine with Sidebottom to obtain the invention as recited in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “determining, by the NAT system, a first domain name associated with the first non-routable IP address;
determining, by the NAT system, a second domain name associated with the second non-routable IP address;
sending, by the NAT system to a domain name service (DNS) system, a request to resolve the first and second domain names to routable IP addresses; and
receiving, from the DNS system at the NAT system, the first and second routable IP addresses”
Said limitation is taught by the specification of the instant application as originally filed at least at [P. 0025-26]. Said limitations, in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 3, are not taught or suggested by a reasonable combination of prior art of record.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, and is considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 3. Claim 9 contains similar limitations to claim 3, and is considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 3. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and is considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein preventing any user from being designated as a member of the set of users comprises: providing a knowledge share between a RAID authorization system providing authorization services for the RAID controller and a NAT authorization system providing authorization services for the NAT system;
receiving, at one of the RAID authorization system or the NAT authorization system, a request to grant access to a new user;
querying the knowledge share to determine whether the new user is a current user of at least one of the RAID controller or the NAT system;
when the new user is determined to be a current user of at least one of the RAID controller or the NAT system, denying the request to grant access to the new user”
Said limitation is taught by the specification of the instant application as originally filed at least at [P. 0032-33]. Said limitations, in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 5, are not taught or suggested by a reasonable combination of prior art of record.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, and is considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 5. Claims 11 and 14 contain similar limitations to claim 5, and are considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 5. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and is considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 11. Claims 15-16 depend from claim 14, and are considered allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0257. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm to 6pm, and 10pm to 1am Eastern time (10am to 3pm, and 7pm to 10pm Pacific time).
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, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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.
/STEPHANIE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights