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 .
This office action is in response to communication from applicant received on February 23, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “judging whether the second controller and the first controller are a same controller in response to a determination that the IO data is a data write request; in response to a judgment that the second controller and the first controller are the same controller, re-selecting a controller except the first controller as the second controller”. Claim 1 also recites “judging whether the second controller and the first controller are the same controller in response to a determination that the IO data is a data read request; in response to a judgment that the second controller and the first controller are the same controller”. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “synchronizing the IO data from the first controller to the second controller by means of the data cache”. The specification lacks adequate written description as to how the claimed invention determines/judges whether the second controller and the first controller are a same controller or not. Although the specification recites that the claimed invention judges whether the second controller and the first controller are the same controller or not, the specification does not disclose how the judgement/determination is being performed and/or how the system arrives to the result of determining that the first controller and the second controller are the same controller or not. Furthermore, the specification lacks adequate written description as to how data can be synchronized from a first controller to a second controller if the first controller and second controller are the same. As best understood in the art, data synchronization refers to the process of keeping data consistent across multiple/separate locations (i.e. source and target/destination). The specification does not adequately disclose how a synchronization process is performed from a first controller to a second controller when the first controller and the second controller are the same controller. Claim 16 and claim 18 provide similar language as claim 1, and are thus rejected for the same reasons, as well as being rejected for having the same deficiency as claim 1. Claim 19 and claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
All dependent claims are rejected for having the same deficiency as the claim(s) that they depend on.
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 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 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 “wherein the first controller and the second controller are a same controller or not the same controller; synchronizing the IO data from the first controller to the second controller by means of the data cache”. Claim 1 also recites “after allocating the second controller to the IO data by means of a RAID, judging whether the second controller and the first controller are the same controller in response to a determination that the IO data is a data write request; and in response to a judgment that the second controller and the first controller are the same controller, reselecting a controller except the first controller as the second controller”. Based on how the claim is constructed, it is unclear as to how the second controller and the first controller can be the same controller. Claim 1 provides the first controller and second controller to be distinct controllers that perform different functions, so it is unclear as to how the first controller and the second controller can be the same controller after providing a distinction between the two and indicating that they are different (i.e. first and second controller) controllers. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how data can be synchronized from a first controller to a second controller if the first controller and second controller are the same. As best understood in the art, data synchronization refers to the process of keeping data consistent across multiple/separate locations (i.e. source and target/destination). Therefore, it is unclear as to how a synchronization process is performed from a first controller to a second controller when the first controller and the second controller are the same controller, when data synchronization would mean that multiple/separate locations/entities would be needed to enable data consistency. Claim 16 and claim 18 provide similar language as claim 1, and are thus rejected for the same reasons, as well as being rejected for having the same deficiency as claim 1. Claim 19 and claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
All dependent claims are rejected for having the same deficiency as the claim(s) that they depend on.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-15 of applicant’s arguments applicant submitted that paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0073], [0076], and [0087]-[0089] support the current amendments. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and as it does not appear that such paragraphs fully support the amended limitations rejected herein. On page 15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant submitted that it is well known to those skilled in the art of this present application that by comparing identifiers (such as IDs) of the controllers, one can determine whether a first controller and a second controller are the same controller or different controllers. Applicant further submitted that one skilled in the art would understand from the cited disclosure that when the data blocks and the target storage address space are the same, the configuration logic will point to the same controller, that is, the first controller and the second controller are the same controller. Applicant further submitted that when the data blocks and the target storage address space are not the same, the configuration logic will point to different controllers, that is, the first controller and the second controller are not the same controller. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that the cited portions of applicant’s specification do not fully support that “when the data blocks and the target storage address space are the same, the configuration logic will point to the same controller”. Furthermore, cited paragraph [0069] recites “In the present embodiment, a step of partitioning a corresponding address space for each controller at a RAID layer may include: performing address space partitioning at the RAID layer in a unit of stripe according to an address space partitioning rule, and assigning a unique controller to each group of address spaces.” Such paragraph appears to teach that a controller must be different for each address space, and therefore cannot be the same.
On page 16 of applicant’s arguments, applicant submitted that according to paragraph [0076] of the specification, when the IO data is write data, the situation where the first controller and the second controller are the same is avoided by "selecting a controller other than the first controller as the second controller". Applicant further submitted that when performing data synchronization subsequently, it can be ensured that the first controller and the second controller are different controllers. Examiner submits that paragraph [0076] does not disclose how data can be synchronized from a first controller to a second controller if the first controller and second controller are the same, which is what is claimed in the totality of the independent claims. Paragraph [0076] merely recites avoiding a situation where the first controller and the second controller are the same.
On page 17 of applicant’s arguments, applicant submitted that “the specification makes clear that the first controller is directly determined by the logical volume based on the "data block receiving IO data". Its core principle is the attribution of the data blocks - that is, the controller (the first controller) corresponding to the data blocks to which the IO data is allocated is responsible for sending the IO data. The second controller is allocated by the RAID based on the "target storage address space". The core principle is the attribution of the storage address space - that is, the IO data is to be written to the target storage address space, and the controller (the second controller) corresponding to that target storage address space is responsible for processing it. Both the data block and the target storage address space are selected from the RAID layer address space, and the RAID layer address space refers to partitioning a corresponding address space for each controller at a RAID layer. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the above amended claim 1 that when the data blocks and the target storage address space are the same, the configuration logic will point to the same controller, that is, the first controller and the second controller are the same controller. When the data blocks and the target storage address space are not the same, the configuration logic will point to different controllers, that is, the first controller and the second controller are not the same controller.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the cited paragraphs provided by applicant do not adequately disclose such teachings, and the one of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to draw such conclusion based on applicant’s disclosure.
Due the reasons provided, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected under 112(b) and now 112(a). All pending claims in the instant application are rejected herein.
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 communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L WESTBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-5028. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/MICHAEL L WESTBROOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights