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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, at line 9, describes transmitting a stop instruction … at a predetermined cycle. There is no prior reference to a cycle of any kind so it is unclear what it means for something to happen at a predetermined cycle.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent from, but failing to cure the deficiencies of, a rejected base claim.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peipelman et al. (US PGPub No. 2020/0201740 A1), hereinafter referred to as PEIPELMAN.
Consider Claim 11,
PEIPELMAN teaches a control method of controlling an information processing system including a plurality of primary-side storage systems (PEIPELMAN, e.g., Fig 1(2a) , primary storage system;¶0008, controller complex.), one or more secondary-side storage systems configured to copy data of the plurality of primary-side storage systems (PEIPELMAN, e.g., Fig 1(2b), secondary storage system), and one or more hosts configured to control input/output (I/O) of the plurality of primary-side storage systems (PEIPELMAN, e.g., Fig 1(1a-1n), hosts.), the control method comprising:
in each of the plurality of primary-side storage systems, including a control unit configured to control I/O, and a management unit (PEIPELMAN, e.g., Fig 3(104), simulation logic provides control and management.) configured to transmit, to the control unit, test packets (PEIPELMAN, e.g., ¶0081, cause host to send packets.), at a transmission cycle set by a user (PEIPELMAN, e.g., ¶0082, user-selected simulation interval (i.e., transmission cycle).);
by the control unit, receiving the test packets transmitted from the management unit, and counting a number of received packets (PEIPELMAN, e.g., ¶0082, record simulated I/O activity.); and
by the management unit:
acquiring, from the control unit, the number of received packets; evaluating the transmission cycle based on the number of received packets (PEIPELMAN, e.g., ¶0084, identify average throughput in terms of IOPS. Determining IOPS requires counting a number of received packets.); and
presenting, to the user, a result of the evaluating (PEIPELMAN, e.g., ¶0066, results of measurements may be provided to a user.).
Conclusion
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