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 .
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,796 in view of US PGPub 2019/0065382 to Velayuthaperumal et al. (“Velayuthaperumal”).
The limitations of the ‘796 patent that correspond to the limitations of the present application have been mapped according to the rejection in the previous office action. The claims of the ‘796 patent do not recite, “receive read or write commands from a host and to perform read and write operations on the non-volatile storage of the storage device in response to the read and write commands...” Velayuthaperumal discloses a storage system wherein a controller receives read and write commands from a host and performs the read and write operations (see paragraph 41 of Velayuthaperumal). It would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the invention of the ‘796 patent to also receive read and write commands from a host and perform the read and write operations because that is the normal operation of a storage device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2019/0065382 to Velayuthaperumal in view of US PGPub 2022/0035530 to Vikram Singh.
Regarding claim 1, Velayuthaperumal discloses a storage device comprising:
non-volatile storage (see fig. 2, flash memory 144);
a controller of the storage device (see fig. 1, controller circuit 106) configured to:
receive read or write commands from a host and to perform read and write operation on the non-volatile storage of the storage device in response to the read and write commands (see paragraph 41);
receive a copy command from to copy data from a separate source device to the storage device (see fig. 7 and paragraph 58, a copy back command is received from the host by second storage device 110B),
send a read request for the data to the source device pursuant to the copy command from the host (see fig. 7 and paragraph 58, the second storage device 110B issues a second copy back command to the first storage device 110A),
transfer the data from the source device to the storage device pursuant to the read request from the storage device (see fig. 7 and paragraph 58, a data transferred is commenced in which the requested data are transferred from the first device to the second device), and
write the data to the non-volatile storage of the storage device (see fig. 7 and paragraph 58).
Velayuthaperumal does not disclose receiving the copy command from the host. Vikram Singh discloses a storage media wherein a first controller receives a copy command from a host to copy data from a second controller (see paragraph 16 of Vikram Singh). It would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the copy back operation of Velayuthaperuamal to be performed in response to a command from a host in order to allow the host to initiate a copy back operation.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the method performed by the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, wherein the copy command specifies a namespace of the data (see paragraph 48, the destination ID value of the command can be a NVMe namespace value).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, wherein the copy command specifies a logical address of the data (see paragraphs 47-48, the command includes a logical address).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, wherein the non-volatile storage comprises NAND flash memory (see fig. 2 and paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, further comprising a network interface for communicating with the host and the storage device (see paragraph 21, the storage devices may be formed in a storage cloud environment).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, wherein the network interface comprises an Ethernet interface (see paragraph 48, the destination ID of the storage device can be an Ethernet address).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, further comprising buffers (write cache 240, see fig. 8), wherein transferring the data from the source device to the storage device includes transferring data from buffers of the source device (read buffer 226, see fig. 8) to buffers of the storage device (see paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device, wherein transferring the data further includes:
communicating with the source device to set up filling of the buffers of the source device comprises sending a message to the source device (see fig. 7, the copy back command is sent from the second storage device to the first storage device); and
the message comprises at least one of a namespace of the data on the source device, a start logical address of the data on the source device, and a length of the data (see paragraph 47 and 48).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the storage device wherein the source device fills the buffers with chunks of data and one or more chunks of data are transferred simultaneously (see paragraph 89, multiple source devices can operate concurrently to copy data to a destination device).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Velayuthaperumal and Vikram Singh renders obvious the method, wherein transferring the data comprises:
communicating with the source device to set up filling of the buffers of the source device (see fig. 7, the copy back command is sent from the second storage device to the first storage device); and
performing, by the source device, transfer with the destination device to transfer the data from buffers of the source device to buffers of the destination device (see paragraph 70).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the buffers including a reserved area where messages sent to the source device are written to. The prior art also does not disclose the source and storage devices comprising buffers being accessible or inaccessible to the other device. Velayuthaperumal discloses the devices interfacing through a front end without direct connection access to the buffers. There is nothing to suggest any obvious reason why the buffers should be accessible or inaccessible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D TSUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)272-3978. 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.
/DANIEL D TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights