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 .
Detailed Action
Office Action is in response to the instant Application 19/071,241 filed on 11/12/2025 and Preliminary Amendments filed on 5/6/2026. Preliminary amendments cancelled claims 1-20 and added claims 21-40. Claims 21-40 are pending. This Office Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 4/17/2025 and 11/12/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or being significantly more.
Regarding claims 21, 30 and 40, the claim recites the limitations “receiving configuration information” and “updating a first encryption attribute…” Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
However, said operations are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said operations are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., system, processing circuitry, processor, memory, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 22-29 and 31-39, claims 22-29 and 31-39 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claims 22/claim 31 recites “recording a timestamp …,” claim 23/claim 32 recites the limitation “writing first data … ,” claim 24/claim 33 recites “rewriting the first data …,” claim 29/claim 38 recites “receiving a read …,” Said steps are either directed to mental processes and/or in a form of insignificant extra-solution activities; The aforementioned steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-11 and 13-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-25, 30-34 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplet et al. (US 2020/0287788) in view of Crawford et al. (US 2017/0109045)
As per claim 21, Triplet teaches a method comprising: receiving configuration information (Triplet, Paragraph 0074 recites “As indicated in block 104, the method 100 includes the step of enabling an agent associated with the computing device to create a new configuration update for a specific network element. At this point, the configuration update may simply be a proposed configuration change in a pending state and has not yet been enacted within the network. This step may be performed by a human agent or an AI agent.”).
But fails to teach updating a first encryption attribute of a storage pool to a second encryption attribute based on the configuration information.
However, in an analogous art Crawford teaches updating a first encryption attribute of a storage pool to a second encryption attribute based on the configuration information (Crawford, Paragraph 0054 recites “In this example, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500a has been automatically updated to define the assigned encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1a represented by the data structure 500a as, in this example, an encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. Similarly, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500b has been automatically updated to define the assigned Encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1b represented by the data structure 500b as, in this example, the same encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. It is appreciated that automatic assignment of a single encryption policy to the pair of storage subpools as represented by the storage subpool data structures 500a, 500b, can increase the ease of use of the storage management interface. Thus, in one aspect of the present description, the user need not be concerned with the virtual storage pool being implemented by a pair of storage subpools.”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Crawford’s Multiple storage subpools of a virtual storage pool in a multiple processor environment with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of having a more efficient methods to manage storage systems.
As per claim 22, Triplet in combination with Crawford teaches the method according to claim 21, Triplet further teaches further comprising: recording a timestamp of updating the first encryption attribute of the storage pool to the second encryption attribute (Triplet, Paragraph 0068 recites “FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a new block 70 to be added to an end of a blockchain. The block 70 includes a header 72 and a body 74. Each configuration or policy update by any agent may be recorded as a transaction in the block 70. The header 72 includes a block ID, a cryptographic hash value of a previous block, and a timestamp. The body 74 includes the current configuration update as well as previously enacted configuration updates. For example, a first configuration update (“Configuration update 1”) is shown as being encrypted with a private key A, where “A” represents a first agent. The encrypted information of configuration update 1 can be viewed by using a public key (i.e., public key A). The second configuration update (“Configuration update 2”) is shown as being encrypted with a private key C, where “C” represents a third agent. The encrypted information of configuration update 2 can be viewed by using a public key (i.e., public key C).”).
As per claim 23, Triplet in combination with Crawford teaches the method according to claim 21, Crawford further teaches further comprising: before updating the first encryption attribute of the storage pool to the second encryption attribute based on the configuration information, writing first data to the storage pool based on a current first encryption attribute of the storage pool (Crawford, Paragraph 0054 recites “In this example, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500a has been automatically updated to define the assigned encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1a represented by the data structure 500a as, in this example, an encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. Similarly, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500b has been automatically updated to define the assigned Encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1b represented by the data structure 500b as, in this example, the same encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. It is appreciated that automatic assignment of a single encryption policy to the pair of storage subpools as represented by the storage subpool data structures 500a, 500b, can increase the ease of use of the storage management interface. Thus, in one aspect of the present description, the user need not be concerned with the virtual storage pool being implemented by a pair of storage subpools.” It would be obvious that if there is a change an encryption, previous data and current data would be stored based on the current encryption at the time.).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Crawford’s Multiple storage subpools of a virtual storage pool in a multiple processor environment with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of having a more efficient methods to manage storage systems.
As per claim 24, Triplet in combination with Crawford teaches the method according to claim 23, Crawford further teaches further comprising: rewriting the first data to the storage pool based on the second encryption attribute of the storage pool (Crawford, Paragraph 0054 recites “In this example, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500a has been automatically updated to define the assigned encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1a represented by the data structure 500a as, in this example, an encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. Similarly, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500b has been automatically updated to define the assigned Encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1b represented by the data structure 500b as, in this example, the same encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. It is appreciated that automatic assignment of a single encryption policy to the pair of storage subpools as represented by the storage subpool data structures 500a, 500b, can increase the ease of use of the storage management interface. Thus, in one aspect of the present description, the user need not be concerned with the virtual storage pool being implemented by a pair of storage subpools.”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Crawford’s Multiple storage subpools of a virtual storage pool in a multiple processor environment with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of having a more efficient methods to manage storage systems.
As per claim 25, Triplet in combination with Crawford teaches the method according to claim 23, Crawford further teaches wherein writing the first data to the storage pool based on the current first encryption attribute of the storage pool comprises: writing the first data and a first identifier to the storage pool based on the current first encryption attribute of the storage pool, wherein the first identifier indicates that the first data corresponds to the first encryption attribute (Crawford, Paragraph 0054 recites “In this example, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500a has been automatically updated to define the assigned encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1a represented by the data structure 500a as, in this example, an encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. Similarly, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500b has been automatically updated to define the assigned Encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1b represented by the data structure 500b as, in this example, the same encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. It is appreciated that automatic assignment of a single encryption policy to the pair of storage subpools as represented by the storage subpool data structures 500a, 500b, can increase the ease of use of the storage management interface. Thus, in one aspect of the present description, the user need not be concerned with the virtual storage pool being implemented by a pair of storage subpools.”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Crawford’s Multiple storage subpools of a virtual storage pool in a multiple processor environment with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of having a more efficient methods to manage storage systems.
Regarding claims 30 and 40, claims 30 and 40 are directed to an apparatus and a chip associated with the method of claim 21. Claims 30 and 40 are of similar scope to claim 21, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 22 respectively. Claim 31 is similar in scope to claim 22, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 23 respectively. Claim 32 is similar in scope to claim 23, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 24 respectively. Claim 33 is similar in scope to claim 24, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 25 respectively. Claim 34 is similar in scope to claim 25, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 26-29 and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplet et al. (US 2020/0287788) and Crawford et al. (US 2017/0109045) and in further view of Mizuno et al. (US 2016/0026537).
As per claim 26, Triplet in combination with Crawford teaches the method according to claim 25, but fails to teach wherein the first identifier is stored in a data integrity field (DIF) corresponding to the first data in the storage pool.
However, in an analogous art Mizuno teaches wherein the first identifier is stored in a data integrity field (DIF) corresponding to the first data in the storage pool (Mizuno, Paragraph 0111 recites “The guarantee code 420 is redundant data added to the data section 415 in order to improve the reliability of the data in the data section 415. The guarantee code 420 is used to detect and correct garbled data and the like. The guarantee code 420 may be, for example, parity, CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Code), or T10DIF (Data Integrity Field) defined by the standards organization T10.”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Mizuno’s Storage system with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of improving the reliability of data.
As per claim 27, Triplet in combination with Crawford and Mizuno teaches the method according to claim 26, Mizuno further teaches wherein the first identifier is stored in a logical block application tag Meta Tag of the DIF corresponding to the first data in the storage pool (Mizuno, Paragraph 0112 recites “The dirty block flag 425 is configured in a partial area (for example, a meta tag area) of the guarantee code 420. The dirty block flag 425 is a flag indicating that the data block is a dirty block, that is, the data block has not been stored in the disk 125 yet. The logical address of the data block is stored in the other area of the guarantee code 420.”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Mizuno’s Storage system with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of improving the reliability of data.
As per claim 28, Triplet in combination with Crawford and Mizuno teaches the method according to claim 25, Triplet further teaches wherein the first identifier is stored in a metadata file in the storage pool, and the metadata file is used to record metadata of data stored in the storage pool (Triplet, Paragraph 0069 recites “The encrypted information contains at least three types of data, such as a Device ID, the updated configuration, and metadata. The device ID is a unique ID of the device or port (e.g., MAC address, node name, etc.). The “updated configuration” is the version of the configuration at the time when the particular configuration was updated. The metadata may include, for instance, the machine learning (ML) model (or a reference to it) of the AI device 20, performance metrics that triggered the update, or a smart contract outlining the conditions for an update.”).
As per claim 29, Triplet in combination with Crawford teaches the method according to claim 21, Crawford further teaches further comprising: reading the to-be-processed data based on an encryption attribute corresponding to the to-be-processed data, wherein the encryption attribute comprises either encrypted or non-encrypted (Crawford, Paragraph 0054 recites “In this example, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500a has been automatically updated to define the assigned encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1a represented by the data structure 500a as, in this example, an encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. Similarly, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500b has been automatically updated to define the assigned Encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1b represented by the data structure 500b as, in this example, the same encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. It is appreciated that automatic assignment of a single encryption policy to the pair of storage subpools as represented by the storage subpool data structures 500a, 500b, can increase the ease of use of the storage management interface. Thus, in one aspect of the present description, the user need not be concerned with the virtual storage pool being implemented by a pair of storage subpools.” With Crawford system setup like this, any access whether read or write will take into account the encryption policies set forth by the storage pools.).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Crawford’s Multiple storage subpools of a virtual storage pool in a multiple processor environment with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of having a more efficient methods to manage storage systems.
But fails to teach receiving a read request, wherein the read request is used to request to read to-be-processed data.
However, in an analogous art Mizuno teaches receiving a read request, wherein the read request is used to request to read to-be-processed data (Mizuno, Paragraph 0052-0053 recites “The host computer 105 transmits a data write request or a data read request to the storage controller 115. The host computer 105 may be what is called an open protocol server or a main frame computer. Upon receiving a read request (read command) from the host computer 105, the storage controller 115 reads data requested to be read, from the disk enclosure 120, and transmits the read data to the host computer 105. Upon receiving a write request (write command) from the host computer 105, the storage controller 115 writes data requested to be written, to the disk enclosure 120.”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date, to use Mizuno’s Storage system with Triplet’s Registering Collaborative Configuration Changes Of A Network Element In A Blockchain Ledger because it offers the advantage of improving the reliability of data.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 26 respectively. Claim 35 is similar in scope to claim 26, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 27 respectively. Claim 36 is similar in scope to claim 27, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 28 respectively. Claim 37 is similar in scope to claim 28, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is directed to a similar apparatus associated with the method of claim 29 respectively. Claim 38 is similar in scope to claim 29, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
As per claim 39, Triplet in combination with Crawford and Mizuno teaches the apparatus according to claim 38, Crawford further teaches wherein reading the to-be-processed data based on the encryption attribute corresponding to the to-be-processed data comprises: obtaining an attribute identifier that indicates the encryption attribute corresponding to the to-be-processed data; and reading the to-be-processed data based on the encryption attribute indicated by the attribute identifier (Crawford, Paragraph 0054 recites “In this example, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500a has been automatically updated to define the assigned encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1a represented by the data structure 500a as, in this example, an encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. Similarly, the encryption policy attribute field 514 of the data structure 500b has been automatically updated to define the assigned Encryption policy attribute of the storage subpool SubPool1b represented by the data structure 500b as, in this example, the same encryption policy represented as “EP1” which may be a default encryption policy, for example. It is appreciated that automatic assignment of a single encryption policy to the pair of storage subpools as represented by the storage subpool data structures 500a, 500b, can increase the ease of use of the storage management interface. Thus, in one aspect of the present description, the user need not be concerned with the virtual storage pool being implemented by a pair of storage subpools.” With Crawford system setup like this, any access whether read or write will take into account the encryption policies set forth by the storage pools.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODERICK TOLENTINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2661. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
RODERICK . TOLENTINO
Examiner
Art Unit 2439
/RODERICK TOLENTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights