DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/018,279 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, there are 2 independent claims and 18 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant's drawings submitted 1/13/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 (C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statements, dated 1/13/2025(x2), is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 C(2), a copy of each PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12,222,959. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 12,222,959
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 encoded data slices of a common revision of at least one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units;
retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from a second set of storage units;
decoding the decode threshold number of the encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object;
restoring availability of the pillar width number of the encoded data slices by:
rebuilding at least a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, based on an encoding of the at least one data object; and storing the at least a subset of encoded data slices in the storage network.
1. A method for execution by a processor of a storage network, the method comprises:
encoding, via a dispersed error encoding, at least one data object as a write threshold number of encoded data slices; storing the write threshold number of the encoded data slices in a set of storage units of the storage network; determining when, less than a pillar width number of the encoded data slices of a common revision are retrievable from the set of storage units:
retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from others of the set of storage units;
decoding the decode threshold number of the encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object;
restoring availability of the pillar width number of the encoded data slices by:
rebuilding at least a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, based on an encoding of the at least one data object; and storing the at least a subset of encoded data slices in the storage network.
This rejection has been made as all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are present in the claims of US 12,222,959, and therefore claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the claims of US 12,222,959. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 11,741,125. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 11,741,125
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 encoded data slices of a common revision of at least one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units;
retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from a second set of storage units;
decoding the decode threshold number of the encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object;
restoring availability of the pillar width number of the encoded data slices by:
rebuilding at least a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, based on an encoding of the at least one data object; and storing the at least a subset of encoded data slices in the storage network.
1. A method for execution by a processor of a storage network, the method comprises:
encoding, via a dispersed error encoding, at least one data object as a write threshold number of encoded data slices;
storing the write threshold number of the encoded data slices in a set of storage units of the storage network;
determining when, due to a failure of at least one of the set of storage units, less than a pillar width number of the encoded data slices of a common revision are retrievable from the set of storage units:
retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from others of the set of storage units;
decoding the decode threshold number of the encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object;
restoring availability of the pillar width number of the encoded data slices of the common revision by: rebuilding at least a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, based on an encoding of the at least one data object; and storing the at least a subset of encoded data slices in the storage network.
This rejection has been made as all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are present in the claims of US 11,741,125, and therefore claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the claims of US 11,741,125. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 11,409,767. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 11,409,767
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 encoded data slices of a common revision of at least one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units;
retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from a second set of storage units;
decoding the decode threshold number of the encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object;
restoring availability of the pillar width number of the encoded data slices by:
rebuilding at least a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, based on an encoding of the at least one data object; and storing the at least a subset of encoded data slices in the storage network.
1. A method for execution by a processor of a storage network, the method comprises:
encoding, via a dispersed error encoding, at least one data object as a write threshold number of encoded data slices;
storing the write threshold number of the encoded data slices in a set of storage units of a storage network;
determining when, due to a failure of at least one of the set of storage units, less than the write threshold number of the encoded data slices are available from the set of storage units, wherein the determining is based on when less than a pillar width number of the set of encoded data slices of a common revision are retrievable from the set of storage units: retrieving a decode threshold number of the encoded data slices from others of the set of storage units;
decoding the decode threshold number of the encoded data slices to reproduce the at least one data object;
restoring availability of the write threshold number of the encoded data slices from the set of storage units by:
rebuilding a subset of encoded data slices of the set of encoded data slices, based on an encoding of the at least one data object; and storing the subset of encoded data slices in the storage network.
This rejection has been made as all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are present in the claims of US 11,409,767, and therefore claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the claims of US 11,409,767. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Independent claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
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).
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 encoded data slices of one data object are retrievable from a first set of storage units (data object corresponding to “ABCDEF,” 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 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 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.
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).
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 dispersal parameters of Dhuse in the cited prior art in order to determine the amount of slices that must be retrieved.
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.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
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
Regarding Claim 6, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 5, but does not teach wherein identifying the dispersal parameters includes reading an encoded data slice of the set of encoded data slices and extracting the dispersal parameters from the encoded data slice. Therefore, claim 6 contains allowable subject matter. Claims 7-10 contain allowable subject matter as they depend from a claim with allowable subject matter. Claims 16-20 contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons. The examiner notes a double patenting rejection for claims 6-10 and 16-20 is outstanding as noted above.
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have been rejected.
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 9:00-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached at 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