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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the 2nd line of the claim, “computing device of a storage network” should be “computing devices of a storage network”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 (and, therefore, their respective dependent claims) recite the limitation "the encryption key" in, for example, the last line of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous limitation in each claim recites, “for each pair of storage units of the pairs of storage units, generate an encryption key;”. It is not clear how to interpret this. Is a single encryption key being generated over and over again for each pair of storage units? Alternatively, it can be interpreted that “an encryption key” is generated for “each pair of storage units”, therefore, a plurality of encryption keys are produced. Then it’s not clear which of the plurality of encryption keys generated are being referred to as “the encryption key” in the last line.
Similarly, dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19 recites the limitation "the encryption key". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim given the lack of clarity if a single encryption key is generated or a plurality of encryption keys are generated.
Claims 8 and 16 recites the limitation "the encryption key" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because, as written, it is not clear if this instance of “the encryption key” is referring back to the “encryption key” of the corresponding independent claim 1 or the claimed “another encryption key” previously recited in claims 8 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed "memory that stores operational instructions" (for example, in the 4th line of claim 1) can be reasonably interpreted to include both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The description of the term “memory” as described in paragraph [0090] of the specification gives many examples of what “memory” may be, but does not limit the term to only transitory embodiments. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
A claim drawn to such a “memory” that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET).
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
Justin R. Knapp
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights