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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed January 7, 2026 in response to PTO Office Action dated November 17, 2025. The applicant’s remarks and amendment to the specification and/or claims were considered with the results that follow.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination in this application. In response to the last Office Action, claims 1-7 and 15-20 have been elected without traverse. Claims 8-14 have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, and 15are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “a sanitize crypto erase operation” in line 3. It is unclear to the examiner as to whether this “operation” refers to the “sanitize crypto erase audit” of claim 1, line 5, or identifies a different operation altogether. Please also see the 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph rejection for a similar phrase issue.
Claim 7 recites “a sanitize crypto erase operation” in line 2. It is unclear to the examiner as to whether this “operation” refers to the “sanitize crypto erase audit” of claim 1, line 5, or identifies a different operation altogether. Please also see the 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph rejection for a similar phrase issue.
Claim 15, line 11 recites “E2E” without proper recitation of acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 7 and 16-20 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 7 recites the limitation "wherein the crypto erase audit occurs after a sanitize crypto erase operation." in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “crypto erase audit” had not been previously recited. Claim 1, line 5 recites a “sanitize crypto erase audit”, and it is unclear whether the two recitations are linked.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the sanitize crypto erase audit." in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “sanitize crypto erase audit” had not been previously recited. Claim 15, lines 11-12 recite a “sanitize crypto erase audit mode” , and it is unclear whether the two recitations are linked.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the crypto erase audit." in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “sanitize crypto erase audit” had not been previously recited. Claim 15, lines 11-12 recite a “sanitize crypto erase audit mode” , and it is unclear whether the two recitations are linked.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sanitize block erase audit." in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “sanitize block erase audit” had not been previously recited. Claim 15, line 11 recites a “sanitize block erase audit mode” , and it is unclear whether the two recitations are linked.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the sanitize block erase audit." in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “sanitize block erase audit” had not been previously recited. Claim 15, line 11 recites a “sanitize block erase audit mode” , and it is unclear whether the two recitations are linked.
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent upon and thus incorporating therein the rejected subject matter of the respective parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 15 are allowed are allowed over the prior art of record
Claims 7 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wei et al teaches erasing data from solid state drives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian R. Peugh whose telephone number is (571) 272-4199. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez, phone number 571-270-5935, can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN R PEUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133