DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 03/09/2026. Claims 1, 5 – 8, 10 - 14, and 17 - 25 are pending.
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, 5 – 8, 10 - 14, and 17 - 25 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 recites the limitation “allowing a data write operation” in line 7. There is no indication as to what data is written in the data write, where the data comes from, or where the write is performed. The scope of the data write operation is indefinite since there is no indication as to what is written or where the write occurs. There is no mention if the data write that is allowed is performed in the RAID in the claim or in another system somewhere else outside of the RAID. The claim also discloses formatting strips. It is unclear if the write is performed on strips that are not formatted, in the process of being formatted, or a strip that has been formatted. This makes the scope indefinite since it is unclear what exactly is included in the process of allowing a data write operation. For examination the allowing of a data write operation is interpreted as allowing a data write operation to a strip of the RAID that is able to be written since the strip has been formatted before the write operation.
Claim 8 recites “the data write operation” in line 2. As indicated above, the data write operation in base claim 1 is indefinite. Claim 8 does not cure the indefinite issue regarding the data write operation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a data read operation is allowed” in lines 2 - 3. There is no indication as to what data is read in the data read, where the data goes to, or where the read is performed. The scope of the data read operation is indefinite since there is no indication what is read or where the read occurs. There is no mention if the data read that is allowed is performed in the RAID in the claim or in another system somewhere else outside of the RAID. The claim also discloses formatting strips. It is unclear if the read is performed on strips that are not formatted, in the process of being formatted, or a strip that has been formatted. This makes the scope indefinite since it is unclear what exactly is included in the process of allowing a data read operation. For examination the allowing of a data read operation is interpreted as allowing a data read operation from a strip of the RAID that is able to read since the strip has been formatted and data stored before the read operation.
Claim 12 recites “the data read operation” in line 2. As indicated above, the data read operation in base claim 11 is indefinite. Claim 12 does not cure the indefinite issue regarding the data write operation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “scanning in units of strips, and identifying mark information of the strips in the bitmap sequentially from head to tail” in lines 4 – 5. There is no indication as to what is being scanning. The scanning is performed in units where the units appear to be the size of strips. The claim fails to disclose what is being scanned though. The size of what is scanned is defined but not what is scanned. This makes the scope of what is being scheduled in units of strips indefinite.
Claims 18 – 19 contain similar limitations rejected above in claim 1 and thus are rejected for similar reasoning.
All remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5 – 8, 10 - 14, and 17 - 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 12 regarding claim 1 that the limitation “allowing a data write operation” refers to an operation that allows writing user data to a strip which is clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no mention in the claims that the allowed write is a write of user data to a strip as argued. There is no mention of user data or of writing data to a strip specifically as argued. The claim discloses allowing a data write operation which includes writing some unknown data to some unknow location. There is no mention as to what data is written or if the location where the write is performed is actually able to accept the data to be written. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., writing user data to a strip) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues on page 13 regarding claim 11 that one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification would know the phrase “allowing a data read operation” refers to reading user data from a strip. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no mention in the claims that the allowed read is a read of user data from a strip as argued. There is no mention of user data or of reading data from a strip specifically as argued. The claim discloses allowing a data read operation which includes reading some unknown data to from some unknow location. There is no mention as to what data is written or if the location where the read is performed is actually able to read out requested data. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reading user data to a strip) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues on page 13 regarding claim 12 that the amendment to line 2 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The phrase “the data read operation” in line 2 refers back to “a data read operation” in base claim 11. There is no amendment in line 2 of claim 12 though. The rejection of claim 12 based on the phrase “the data read operation” is maintained based on the rejection in base claim 11 of the phrase “a data read operation is allowed”.
The applicant argues on page 13 with regard to claim 14 that the amendment of changing scheduling to scanning overcome the previous 112(b) rejection. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendment still does not indicate what is scanned specifically. The scanning is performed in units of strips which appears to indicate a size of what is scanned but not what is scanned. The specification only discloses scanning four times which includes two times on page 12 lines 9 - 10 and two times on page 18 lines 11 – 12. The specification discloses performing scanning a next strip and directly scanning a next strip. It is unclear what is scanned in units of strips and what is the different between scanning and directly scanning.
The applicant argues on page 13 with regard to claims 18 – 19 that the rejections are overcome based on the amendments and arguments regarding claim 1 above. After careful consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner has responded to the arguments regarding claim 1 and updated the rejection of claim 1 in response to the amendments to claim 1. The rejections of claims 18 – 19 are maintained based in part on the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138