DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant's submission of the amendment dated 5/14/2026.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites “determining, for the set of encoded data slices, a number of the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved from a second set of storage units, wherein the number equals a decode threshold number associated with the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved.”
This is not adequately described in the specification. Paragraph 0040 recites “The rebuilding module 388 selects a decode threshold number of storage units as rebuilding participants 390. The selecting includes identifying available storage units 354 of the set of storage units” (emphasis added). Paragraph 0040 does not describe determining a number of the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved from a second set of storage units.
Step 604 of Fig. 10 of the specification teaches retrieving “at least the decode threshold number of encoded data slices,” wherein the “retrieving can include generating at least a decode threshold number of read slice requests for any available decode threshold number of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, outputting the at least the decode threshold number of reads slice requests to the DSTN module and/or the set of storage units, and/or receiving the least the decode threshold number of encoded data slices” (Paragraph 0054). Neither step 604 of Fig. 10 nor Paragraph 0054 describes determining a number of the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved from a second set of storage units.
Therefore, claim 1 contains new matter. Claim 11 contains new matter for similar reasons. The dependent claims inherit this issue. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC ' 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gladwin et al (US 2007/0079082) in view of Dhuse et al (US 2011/0289383) and Grube et al (US 2011/0265143).
Regarding Claim 1, Gladwin teaches a method for execution by a processor of a storage network, the method comprises:
determining, in accordance with dispersed error encoding parameters, when less than a pillar width number of a set of encoded data slices of one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units (data object corresponding to “ABCDEF,” of Fig. 1, and “The data subsets A, B, C, D, E and F are also coded as discussed below forming coded data subsets cA, cB, cC, cD, cE and cF,” Paragraph 0071, and because each coded slice is sent to a node of dispersed storage and may be used to overcome errors in a storage node, Paragraph 0073, the object is dispersed error encoded and thus in accordance with dispersed error encoding parameters, and see Fig. 3, where ‘A’ is unavailable due to a failure/outage, Paragraph 0073, which means less than a pillar width/total number of encoded data slices are retrievable, the first set of storage units corresponding to storage nodes 34-44 of Fig. 3);
retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from a second set of storage units (the decode threshold corresponding to the number of subsets that may be used to reconstruct the data from the failed storage unit — for example, on Fig. 3, a decode threshold of 5 encoded data slices are retrieved, and on Fig. 4, a decode threshold of 3 encoded data slices are retrieved, and in the example of Fig. 3 a decode threshold of data is received from second set of storage units 36-44);
decoding the decode threshold number of the set of encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object (shown at the bottom of Figs. 3 and 4, where the original data object “ABCDEF” is reproduced, Paragraph 0073-0075);
restoring availability of the pillar width number of the set of encoded data slices by:
rebuilding at least a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices (when a storage unit is “permanently damaged,” Paragraph 0103, a list of all slices that must be rebuilt is created, and the encoded data slices are rebuilt according to the process of Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0107-0111), based on an encoding of the at least one data object (the rebuild is based on the encoding, Paragraphs 0098-0099); and storing the at least a subset of encoded data slices in the storage network (Paragraph 0102).
However, the cited prior art does not teach when less than a pillar width number of encoded data slices of a common revision of at least one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units.
Dhuse et al (US 2011/0289383) teaches when less than a pillar width number of encoded data slices of a common revision of at least one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units (“the processing module retrieves and decodes a first group of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices from DS units 1-5 to produce a first data segment and retrieves and decodes a second group of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices from DS units 6-10” and “the first group of encoded data slices and the second group of encoded data slices are associated with a common revision level,” Paragraph 0146, and “the number of received encoded data slices does not compare favorably [i.e., is less than]…the retrieval threshold,” Paragraph 0152, and the retrieval threshold is less than the pillar width number, Paragraph 0148).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implemented the common revision of Dhuse in the retrieval of Gladwin in order to provide data at a requested revision level to a requestor.
Further, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach determining, for the set of encoded data slices, a number of the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved from a second set of storage units, wherein the number equals a decode threshold number associated with the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved.
Grube teaches, when less than a pillar width number of a set of encoded data slices of one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units (step 232 of Fig. 15B, where an encoded data slice may be missing/unretrievable, indicating less than a total number/pillar width number of encoded data slices are retrievable),
determining, for the set of encoded data slices, a number of the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved from a second set of storage units, wherein the number equals a decode threshold number associated with the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved (“the processing module retrieves at least a decode threshold number of slices from DS units of other pillars,” Paragraph 0147, the second set of storage units corresponding to DS units with the retrieved sub-slices, and as requests are sent for the decode threshold number of slices, the decode threshold/number of the set of encoded data slices to be retrieved is determined, also see the determined dispersal parameters at step 238 of Fig. 15B, which includes “a decode threshold,” Paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implemented the determining of Grube in the cited prior art in order to retrieve a minimum number of encoded data slices necessary for rebuilding the missing data slice.
Regarding Claim 2, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining when less than the pillar width number of encoded data slices are available includes invoking a list query to the set of storage units and comparing query responses received from the set of storage units (Paragraphs 0108-0110 of Gladwin).
Regarding Claim 3, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein retrieving the decode threshold number of encoded data slices includes generating at least the decode threshold number of read slice requests for transmission to the set of storage units, and receiving the at least the decode threshold number of encoded data slices from the set of storage units in response (see for example, Fig. 4, where a read request is generated for nodes 2, 3, 5, which are at least a decode threshold number as data is able to be decoded using these slices, and a response is received, Paragraph 0075 of Gladwin).
Regarding Claim 4, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:storing a write threshold number of the encoded data slices in the first set of storage units of the storage network (Paragraph 0073 of Dhuse).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implemented the write threshold of Dhuse in the cited prior art in order to ensure the written data is retrievable.
Regarding Claim 5, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
identifying dispersal parameters associated with the set of encoded data slices, wherein the dispersal parameters include the decode threshold number (dispersal parameters are found at step 236 of Fig. 11, which includes a decode threshold, Paragraph 0147).
Claim 11 is the processing system corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is the processing system corresponding to the method of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is the processing system corresponding to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is the processing system corresponding to the method of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is the processing system corresponding to the method of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING NON-PRIOR ART REJECTIONS/OBJECTIONS
Rejections – Double Patenting
Applicant's terminal disclaimer filed 5/14/2026 has been approved. The double patenting rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
Applicant’s argument the cited prior art fails to teach the claims as amended has been considered and is persuasive. Thus, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, a new rejection has been made as noted above.
12CLOSING COMMENTS
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
SUBJECT MATTER CONSIDERED ALLOWABLE
Claims 6 and 16 contain allowable subject matter as noted in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/11/2026, Page 12. The examiner notes a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph has been made for these claims as noted above.
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have been rejected in the application.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00- 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights