DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claim term “location information” in claims 1, 10 and 19 does not have proper antecedent basis to specification. In para.0044, the specification use “location” once. It is unclear whether the claimed “location information” is corresponding to the “location” in specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “[first storage drive] provide location information of the data … [first storage drive] receive a request from the second storage drive based on the location information …” in claim 1 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. Referenced with paras.0044-0046, the fig. 5 in application shows requests S5/S6 are not directed to second storage drive 220/320 rather than first storage drive 100, e.g., received from first storage drive by second storage drive.
Therefore, the “set a flag indicating that the second storage drive is referenced for the transferring of the data” in claims 7 and 16 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “dereference the second storage drive for the transferring of the data in response to the completion signal” in claims 9, 18 and 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy 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 claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent #11,321,249. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention simply claims a broader scope of the peer-to-peer DMA data transfer between storage servers as in the ‘249 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent #11,775,454. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention simply claims a broader scope of data transfer between storage servers as in the ‘454 patent.
For example,
‘613 Application
‘454 Patent
(Claim 1) a first storage drive comprising a memory, and configured to:
(Claim 1) a drive-to-drive storage system comprising: a server comprising: a processor; and server memory;
a first storage drive comprising memory, and communicably connected to the server; and a second storage drive comprising memory, and connected to the first storage drive over a pee-to-peer link;
wherein the first storage drive is configured to: receive a write command from the processor; retrieve data from the server memory based on the write command;
store data corresponding to a command in the memory of the first storage drive;
store the data in the memory of the first storage drive;
provide location information of the data stored in the memory of the first storage drive to a second storage drive connected to the first storage drive;
issue a notification to the second storage drive in response to the write command, the notification comprising location formation of the data stored in the memory of the first storage drive
receive a request from the second storage drive based on the location information; and
based on the location information included in the notification
transfer the data from the memory of the first storage drive to the memory of the second storage drive in response to the request from the second storage drive.
transfer the data from the memory of the first storage drive to the memory of the second storage drive via the peer-to-peer link in response to a direct memory access request issued by the second storage drive to the memory of the second storage drive from the memory of the first storage drive.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent #12,174762. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention simply claims a broader scope of data transfer between storage drives as in the ‘762 patent.
For example,
‘613 Application
‘762 Patent
(claim 1) a first storage drive comprising: a memory, and configured to:
(claim 19) a method for storing data from a first storage drive to a second storage drive connected to the first storage drive, comprising:
store data corresponding to a command in the memory of the first drive;
receiving, by the first storage drive, a write command;
storing, by the first storage drive, data corresponding to the write command in memory of the first storage drive;
provide location information of the data stored in the memory of the first storage drive to a second storage drive connected to the first storage drive;
providing, by the first storage drive, the data from the memory of the first storage drive to the memory of the second storage drive; and
receive a request from the second storage drive based on the location information;
in response to a request from the second drive based on the location information,
transfer the data from the memory of the first storage drive to the memory of the second storage drive in response to the request from the second storage drive.
transferring, by the first storage drive, the data from the memory of the first storage drive to the memory of the second storage drive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 10, the claims require “[first storage drive] receive a [DMA] request from second storage drive …”. However, in para.45, the specification states “drives 220 issues DMA request S5 from host” and as shown in fig. 5. The DMA is disclosed as from first to second storage drive. In claim 19, the claim requires “[second storage drive] to provide [DMA] request to first storage drive …” In paras.44-46, the DMA requests appeared to be initiated from the first storage drive and received by the second storage drive. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreier (US 9,892,071) in view of Roberts (US 10,649,867).
Referring to claims 1, 10 and 19, Dreier discloses a first storage drive (fig. 1, storage array 102; fig. 5, storage controller 402) comprising a memory (fig. 2, RAM 236; fig. 5, memory 414), and configured to:
store data (fig. 5, write data 420, data 412) corresponding to a command (fig. 5, request 504) in the memory of the first storage drive, and
provide location information (fig. 5, data transfer descriptor 406) of the data stored in the memory of the first storage drive to a second storage drive (fig. 1, storage array 104) connected to the first storage drive.
Roberts discloses:
receive a request (fig. 6, request DMA transfer of mirror copy) from the second storage drive (fig. 6, RAID array 601) based on the location information (fig. 7, mirror available 703); and
transfer (fig. 6, copy of RAID encoded data) the data from the memory of the first storage drive (fig. 6, mirrored RAID array 651) to the memory of the second storage drive (fig. 6, RAID array 601) in response to the request from the second storage drive (fig. 6, request DMA transfer of mirror copy).
Dreier and Roberts are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in storage array. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Dreier and Roberts before him or her to modify the application of request and transfer data of Dreier to include the storage array mirror request/copy of Roberts, thereafter the storage array has failure recover feature from its mirror copy. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining advantage of improved data redundancy (2:1-67) as suggested by Roberts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dreier with Roberts to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claims 2 and 11, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 1, wherein the request is a direct memory access request (fig. 3, DMA engine 310/316).
As to claims 3 and 12, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 1, wherein the command is received from a server (fig. 2, storage array 216) comprising server memory (fig. 2, RAM 246), and the first storage drive is to retrieve the data corresponding to the command from the server memory (fig. 4, data 412 between storage controller 402 and storage controller 424).
As to claims 4 and 13, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 3, wherein to retrieve the data from the server memory, the first storage drive issues a direct memory access request (fig. 5, storage request 502) to the server to trigger the data to be transferred from the server memory to the memory of the first storage drive (fig. 5, data 412 between storage array controller 402 and storage controller 424).
As to claims 5 and 14, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 1, wherein the first storage drive is a solid state drive SSD (fig. 2, NVRAM device 214), and the memory of the first storage drive is dynamic random access memory (fig. 2, RAM 236).
As to claims 6, 15, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 1, comprising: a first interface (fig. 1, LAN 160, SAN 158); and a second interface (fig. 1, SAN 158; fig. 3, PCIe 312/314) distinct from the first interface, wherein the first storage drive is to communicate with a server (fig. 1, computing devices 164/166/168/170; 2:4-16, server) using the first interface, and wherein the first storage drive is to communicate with the second storage drive using the second interface (fig. 3, PCIe 312/314).
As to claims 7 and 16, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 1, set a flag (fig. 4, static valid bit 438) indicating that the second storage drive is referenced (fig. 4, 10:35-52, validity value on whether descriptor has been processed) for the transferring of the data.
As to claims 8 and 17, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 1, receive a completion signal (fig. 4, completed data transfer descriptor 436) from the second storage drive, indicating that the transfer of the data is complete.
As to claims 9, 18 and 20, Dreier discloses the drive of claim 8, dereference (fig. 4, static valid bit 438) the second storage drive for the transferring of the data in response to the completion signal.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights