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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernat et al. (US PGPub No. 2022/0075547), hereinafter referred to as BERNAT.
Consider Claim 1,
BERNAT teaches a storage system comprising:
a plurality of storage devices (BERNAT, e.g., Fig 1C, shows plural flash devices.); and
two or more storage system controllers coupled to the plurality of storage devices (BERNAT, e.g., Fig 1D; ¶0069, storage controllers 125a and 119a), a first storage system controller of the two or more storage system controllers (BERNAT, e.g., Fig 1B(104), processing device of storage controller; Fig 4(125a); ¶0067, provide storage services; ¶0223, processing device of a storage controller performs the method.) comprising a processing device configured to:
receive a write request to store data in a storage device of the plurality of storage devices (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0142, receive request to write data; ¶0214, storage controller is to write data.);
erase one or more erase blocks of the storage device for storing the data (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0215, controller transmits an erase command.);
provide the data, a nonce associated with the write request, and location information of the one or more erase blocks to a second storage system controller of the two or more storage system controllers (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0215, write data to the block (i.e., data and location); ¶0214, describes a controller 412 providing a nonce to controllers 402/404;¶0058),
wherein the second storage system controller is configured to provide the nonce to the storage device prior to storing the data in the one or more erase blocks using the location information (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0215, transmit write command to cause storage device to write data to the block (i.e., location); ¶0214, describes a controller 412 providing a nonce to controllers 402/404;¶0058, storage device controller (i.e., second storage system controller) stores data; ¶0215, transmit an erase command before storing data; ¶0217, if nonces do not match then do not erase. In other words, the nonce is provided before the act of storing the data.).
Consider Claim 4,
BERNAT further teaches wherein the second storage system controller is unable to erase data stored in the storage device (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0217, if nonce does not match then the controller is unable to erase data.).
Consider Claim 5,
BERNAT further teaches wherein the storage device is a managed flash storage device (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0072, first storage controller manages flash device.).
Consider Claim 6,
BERNAT further teaches wherein the first storage system controller is designated as having management responsibilities for the managed flash storage device (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0072, first storage controller manages flash device (i.e., has management responsibilities).).
Claims 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are directed to a method and medium having substantially identical scope to Claims 1 and 4-6 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERNAT.
Consider Claim 2,
BERNAT teaches the storage system of claim 1, above, and further describes generating the nonce to be associated with the write request, wherein the nonce authorizes the second storage system controller to store the data in the one or more erase blocks (BERNAT, e.g., Fig 7; ¶0218-0219, describes modifying (i.e., generating) a new nonce.). BERNAT fails to expressly describe wherein the processing device of the first storage system controller generates the nonce. BERNAT additionally describes that a nonce may correspond to an erase count of the block (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0026) and additionally describes wherein the storage controller manages control information instead of the storage device (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0038). Therefore, given that BERNAT describes migrating the control information corresponding to the nonce to the storage
controller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of BERNAT such that nonce generation occurs in the controller where the information associated with the nonce is stored because it reduces the need for information transfer between where data is stored and where it is used.
Consider Claim 3,
The modified system of BERNAT further teaches wherein the storage device is configured to: reject the write operation request in response to a first nonce provided by the second storage system controller differing from a second nonce received by the storage device (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0215, transmit an erase command before storing data (of a write command); ¶0217, if nonces do not match then do not erase. In this context, disclosure of a failed erase is considered functionally equivalent to a rejected write due to the dependence.
Consider Claim 7,
BERNAT teaches the storage system of claim 1, above, and further teaches sending an acknowledgement that an erase has completed (BERNAT, e.g., ¶0226), but fails to expressly describe wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive an indication from the second storage system controller that the data has been stored in the one or more erase blocks of the storage device; and transmit an acknowledgement to a provider of the write request that the data has been stored. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that acknowledging the success of write operations is notoriously well-known and common in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of BERNAT to receive an indication from the second storage system controller that the data has been stored in the one or more erase blocks of the storage device and transmit an acknowledgement to a provider of the write request that the data has been stored because it is notoriously well-known in the art and ensures integrity of the operation to the originator of the write command.
Claims 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are directed to a method or media having substantially identical scope to Claims 2,3, or 7 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14APR2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claims have incorporated allowable subject matter. The examiner notes that the prior claims required that the processor of the first storage system generates and provides a nonce to the second storage system controller and the storage device. The instant claims require that the first controller provides the nonce to a second controller and then the second controller provides the nonce to the device. It is noted that BERNAT does describe the instant claims for at least the reasons provided in the updated rejections provided above.
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 Gary W Cygiel whose telephone number is (571)270-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 11am-3pm PST.
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, Arpan P Savla can be reached at (571) 272-1077. 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.
/Gary W. Cygiel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights