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 .
Response to Amendment
This final Office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/27/26 which amended claims 1, 7, 11, 16, and 19. Claims 1-20 are pending. All objections and rejections not repeated below are withdrawn.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,659. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are not material to patentability. Essentially all that has been done to the patented claims to arrive at the instant claims is remove limitations. It is obvious to remove limitations from patented claims. The following chart compares instant claim 11 with patented claim 1:
Instant claim 11
Patented claim 1
11. A data processing method, comprising:
1. A data management method, comprising:
accessing, by a processing device, data of stored in a first storage medium and data stored in a second storage medium, wherein the first storage medium is a non-volatile storage medium of a first type, the second storage medium is a volatile storage medium of a second type;
managing, by a data management apparatus of a hierarchical storage system, data transmission channels between at least two first storage medium and a second storage medium, wherein the at least two first storage medium and the second storage medium are coupled to different layers in a hierarchical storage system, wherein transmission performance of each first storage medium is poorer than transmission performance of the second storage medium, and there is a data transmission channel between each first storage medium and the second storage medium, wherein the data management apparatus is independent from a central processing unit (CPU) of the hierarchical storage system;
migrating, by a management device, data between the first storage medium and the second storage medium.
and migrating, by the data management apparatus, data between the second storage medium and the at least two first storage medium through the data transmission channels, wherein the at least two first storage medium are of a first type, the second storage medium is of a second type.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “SAS-2 Multiplexing (Draft) Revision 7,” XP093145552, 05-381r7 SAS-2 Multiplexing by Rob Elliott (ELLIOTT).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, ELLIOTT shows the claimed processing device/processing unit/management device/controller as the expander in Fig. 1. He shows the claimed first storage medium as a disk drive on the right side of Fig. 1. He does not show the claimed second storage medium but its presence is inherent in the device shown in Fig. 1 as the host which contains the shown host bus adapter (HBA). These two storage media (disk drive and host) are of different types.
ELLIOTT may not explicitly teach that his disk drive is nonvolatile storage (as now claimed) or that his host has volatile storage (as now claimed), however it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use those types of storage in the disk drive and host, respectively, of ELLIOTT. Regarding disk drives, nonvolatile storage is obvious to use to ensure that stored data remains stored even when power is turned off. Regarding hosts, volatile storage is obvious to use for its increased speed and it was commonly found in registers, buffers, caches, and other kinds of storage typically found in host devices.
ELLIOTT’s expander separately communicates with the disk drive and the host and migrates data back and forth between the disk drive and the host.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, ELLIOTT’s expander migrates data between the disk drive and the host through the transmission channels shown (one having a performance of 3 Gbps and the other having a performance of 1.5 Gbps).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, in Fig. 1, ELLIOTT shows a quantity N of two first storage devices (disk drives). He shows two transmission channels to the expander and then one to the host (HBA). His expander migrates data from the disk drives to the host, as claimed.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, ELLIOTT’s device operates as claimed, namely his expander determines a quantity of disk drives (two) based on a second ratio of transmission bandwidth of the host (3.0 Gbps) to the transmission bandwidth of the disk drives (1.5 Gbps). Fig. 1 shows the established data transmission channels.
Regarding claim 5, ELLIOTT’s expander performs the functions of the claimed management device and migrating unit since it manages the data transmission channels and migrates the data through the transmission channels.
Regarding claims 8-10, 17, and 18, ELLIOTT’s device performs the claimed read, write, and migrate operations from the host to the disk drives and from the disk drives to the host, going through the expander in both situations (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, third paragraph, Applicant argues that “The host computer is a computing platform, not a storage medium.” However, since the host computer necessarily includes storage media, the language of the claim is met by the storage media (registers, buffers, caches, etc. as mentioned above) in the host computer. Nothing in the claims precludes the second storage medium being a storage medium inside of or as part of a host.
On page 7, fourth paragraph, Applicant argues that “both the first storage medium and the second storage medium are components of the system or device” and that the configuration of these components (being “co-located as components within a host device”) is not taught by ELLIOTT. However, Applicant is reading limitations into the claims. Nowhere is it required by the claims to have the first storage medium and the second storage medium “co-located as components within a host device.”
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are made final.
Note
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123.
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 Office action should be directed to the Examiner by phone at (571) 272-4214.
Any response to this Office action should be labeled appropriately (including serial number, Art Unit 2132, and type of response) and mailed to Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; hand-carried or delivered to the Customer Service Window at the Knox Building, 501 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; faxed to (571) 273-8300; or filed electronically using the Patent Center.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the 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 the Patent Center and visit 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.
/Kevin Verbrugge/
Kevin Verbrugge
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights