DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action, based on application 19/181,903 filed 17 April 2025, is filed responsive to applicant’s initial filing. Claims 1-20, as amended on 18 February 2026, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 December 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Patent Eligibility is determined as set forth under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (see MPEP § 2106). The analysis of the claims in view of the guidelines are presented below.
Claim 1:
Regarding Step 1, the claim is directed to an method (or process). Thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim includes the following limitations:
A method, comprising:
receiving, in a memory sub-system, a request to create a first namespace;
creating, in response to the request, the first namespace and a second namespace having a same storage capacity as the first namespace, wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level,
wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system; and
exposing, by the memory sub-system, the second namespace
The underlined portions of Limitations (3) and (4) above are directed to creating two namespaces with different granularity levels. Microsoft’s Computer Dictionary defines a namespace as follows:
1. A grouping of one or more names that represent individual objects within the group in a shared computing environment, such as a network. The names within a namespace are unique, are created according to the same rules, and can be resolved into a particular identifying item of information, such as an IP address or a network device. A namespace can be either flat—a single collection of unique names—or hierarchical, as is the Internet’s DNS (Domain Name System), which is based on a treelike structure that is refined through successive levels beginning with the root server and the Internet’s top-level domains (.com, .net, .org, and so on). In everyday terms, a namespace is comparable to a telephone book, in which each name is unique and resolves to the phone number and address of a particular individual, business, or other entity.
2. A means of identifying elements and attributes in an XML document by assigning them a two-part name with the first part being the namespace and the second part being the functional name. A namespace identifies a set of names to prevent confusion when multiple objects with identical functional names are taken from different sources and brought together in the same XML document. Namespaces typically reference a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) because each URI will be unique.
While the Office has reviewed applicant’s specification, the specification does not provide any particular details in terms of what is actually generated as a result of creating a namespace. ¶[0073] of the specification does provide a description of defining a block represented by an address in a namespace which includes performing a series of calculations ¶[0074] further states an address map may be generated in the namespace which basically entails mapping logical constructs to physical resources. Enumerated groupings of abstract ideas include “Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The Office has determined that the actions of the underlined portions of Limitations (3) and (4) fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The noted actions of Limitations (3) and (4) effectively makes judgements by associating identifiers to resources. The Office has determined the claim recites a judicial exception requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea of the claim, the claim further recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, in a memory sub-system, a request to create a first namespace;
creating, in response to the request, the first namespace and a second namespace having a same storage capacity as the first namespace, wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level,
wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system; and
exposing, by the memory sub-system, the second namespace
The underlined portions of Limitations (2), (4), and (5) above have been identified to recite additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
Limitations (2), (4), and (5) further limit the claimed memory system to comprise structural elements including a memory sub-system. The specification at ¶[0016-0017] suggests applicant’s invention may be practiced in conventional memory sub-systems and host systems. As such, the claimed method comprising structural elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they merely comprise generic computing elements used to apply the identified abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements of a memory sub-system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the structural components do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitation (2) further limit the claimed method to receiving a command to create a namespace. The Office asserts the limitation constitutes a pre-solution activity of gathering data or information for use in conjunction with the claimed abstract idea (e.g. the received command provides information to instruct what is to be generated and may further include how the namespace is to be generated). As such, Limitation (2) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation amounts to mere data gathering or data output to which the courts have determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Limitation (5) further limits the claimed method to ‘exposing’ a namespace. The specification does not appear to provide any further information as to what happens in performing the act of ‘exposing’. The Office asserts the act of ‘exposing’ by itself, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, may simply display the results of what is generated by performing the abstract idea. As such, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Office notes the claim does not appear to incorporate any additional elements that demonstrate the claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The Office asserts the claim is merely directed to the creation or generation of a namespace (or data), which by itself, does not realize any improvement in the functioning of a computer. The Office asserts the any improvement cannot be realized until the created content is applied or used in some meaningful way.
As such, the claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application requiring further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates the additional elements of the claim to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. As noted above in conjunction with the analysis of Step 2A Prong 2, those additional elements have been identified.
Limitations (2), (4), and (5) further limit the claimed method to comprise structural elements including a memory sub-system. As noted in the analysis of the elements in conjunction with Step 2A Prong 2, the claimed method comprising structural elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they merely comprise generic computing elements used to apply the identified abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements of a memory sub-system does not add significantly more than the judicial exception because the structural components do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitation (2) further limit the claimed apparatus to receiving a command to create a namespace. The courts have recognized, similar to the elements of the limitation, that computer functions including “storing and retrieving information in memory” are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Limitation (5) further limits the claimed apparatus to ‘exposing’ a namespace. As noted in the analysis of the elements in conjunction with Step 2A Prong 2, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus are not patent eligible.
Claim 8:The claim recites the following limitations:
A memory sub-system, comprising:
a host interface configured to operate on a computer bus;
non-volatile memory cells; and
a controller configured to:
receive a request to create a first namespace; and
create, in response to the request, the first namespace and a second namespace having a same storage capacity as the first namespace,
wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level,
wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system
Similar to the analysis of Claim 1 above:
The claim is directed to an sub-system (or machine/manufacture); thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Limitations (6) through (8) recite a judicial exception.
Limitations (1) through (5) and (8) recite additional elements that fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Limitation (5) recites receiving a request similar to the analysis of Limitation (2) of Claim 1.
Limitations (1) through (4) and (8) recite structural components that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea similar to the analysis of Limitations (2), (3), and (5) of Claim 1.
Limitations (1) through (5) and (8) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:The claim recites the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions which, when executed in a memory sub-system, cause the memory sub-system to perform a method, comprising:
receiving, in the memory sub-system, a request to create a first namespace;
creating, in response to the request, the first namespace and a second namespace having a same storage capacity as the first namespace,
wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level,
wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system; and
exposing, by the memory sub-system, the second namespace
Similar to the analysis of Claim 1 above:
The claim is directed to a medium (or machine/manufacture); thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Limitations (3) through (5) recite a judicial exception.
Limitations (1), (2), (6), and (7) recite additional elements that fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Limitations (1), (2), (6), and (7) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2, 9, and 16
Claim 2 (and similarly Claims 9 and 16) further limits parent Claim 1 as follows:
maintaining, by the memory sub-system, a mapping between logical addresses defined in the first namespace and physical addresses of the set of storage resources; and providing, by the memory sub-system, access to addresses in the second namespace via the mapping between logical addresses defined in the first namespace and physical addresses of the set of storage resources; wherein a first size of a storage space represented by each address in the first namespace is a multiple of a second size of a storage space represented by each address in the second namespace
Beyond the analysis of Claim 1 above, the additional limitations incorporated into Claim 2 have been found to further limit the identified abstract idea of the parent claim. Claim 2’s ‘size’ limitations are directed to further defining Claim 1’s Limitations (3) and (4) directed to determining creating namespaces including limiting how the namespaces are created. Claim 2 further defines the namespace by maintaining a map that associates logical to physical addresses. For similar reasons provided in the analysis of the limitations in conjunction with Claim 1 above, the Office has determined that the additional limitations of the dependent claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations may practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Claim 2 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
While Claim 2 further recites an additional element of ‘providing access’, the Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Office asserts, similar to the analysis of ‘exposing’ of Limitation (5) of Claim 1, the act of ‘providing access’ by itself, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 3, 10, and 17
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite a limitation beyond that recited in each respective parent claim; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” in the parent claim. However, Claims 3, 10, and 17 are further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of each respective parent claim. Claims 3, 10, and 17 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
While Claims 3, 10, and 17 further recite an additional element of each respective namespace being accessible by a respective protocol, the Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since reciting the namespaces are accessible using a protocol merely sets forth that the namespace is accessed using a set of rules which does nor more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 4 and 18
Claims 4 and 18 recite a limitation beyond that recited in each respective parent claim; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” in the parent claim. However, Claims 4 and 18 are further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of each respective parent claim. Claims 4 and 18 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
While Claims 4 and 18 further recite an additional element of the memory sub-system conforming to a standard, the Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Office asserts setting forth the memory sub-system as being configured to operate according to a standard does nor more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11
Claim 11 recite a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 8; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” in the parent claim. However, Claim 11 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 8. Claim 11 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
While Claim 11 further recites an additional element of the memory sub-system and computer bus each conforming to a standard, the Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Office asserts setting forth the memory sub-system and computer bus as each being configured to operate according to a standard does nor more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 5 and 12
Claims 5 and 12 recite a limitation beyond that recited in each respective parent claim; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” in the parent claim. However, Claims 5 and 12 are further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of each respective parent claim. Claims 5 and 12 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
While Claims 5 and 12 further recite an additional element of each respective namespace being accessible by a respective protocol and further defining the respective protocol, the Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since reciting the namespaces are accessible using a protocol merely sets forth that the namespace is accessed using a set of rules which does nor more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 6, 13, and 19
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite a limitation beyond that recited in each respective parent claim; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” in the parent claim. However, Claims 6, 13, and 19 are further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of each respective parent claim. Claims 6, 13, and 19 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
While Claims 6, 13, and 19 further recite an additional element of each respective namespace being accessible by a respective protocol and further defining the respective protocol, the Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since reciting the namespaces are accessible using a protocol merely sets forth that the namespace is accessed using a set of rules which does nor more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU et al (US PGPub 2020/0249873).
With respect to Claim 1, HSU discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, in a memory sub-system, a request to create a first namespace (Abstract – “receiving a first namespace (NS) management command from the host device; in response to the first NS management command, establishing a first NS adopting the first LBA format”);
creating, in response to the request, the first namespace (Abstract – “in response to the first NS management command, establishing a first NS adopting the first LBA format”) and creating, in response to another request, a second namespace (Abstract – “receiving a second NS management command from the host device; and in response to the second NS management command, establishing a second NS adopting the second LBA format”) having a same storage capacity as the first namespace (¶[0042] – “the NS 311 and 312 have the same storage capacity”), wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level (¶[0039] – “A number LBC1 of first logical blocks within the NS 311 is equal to a first predetermined number, and a size of each first logical block within the first logical blocks is equal to a first predetermined size (e.g. 0.5 KB) … In addition, a number LBC2 of second logical blocks within NS 312 is equal to a second predetermined number, and a size of each second logical block within the second logical blocks is equal to a second predetermined size (e.g. 4 KB)”), wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system (Fig 3 depicts NS 311 and 312 mapping to L2P Tables 321 and 322 respectively with the L2P tables both mapping to Storage Space 330); and
exposing, by the memory sub-system, the second namespace (¶[0036] discusses that access commands may be submitted by a host to access storage via the second namespace).
HSU may not explicitly disclose wherein the request and the another request are a same request.
However, HSU states that first and second namespaces may be created in response to first and second requests which at least suggests that multiple namespaces may be created by the same request if the same request had the same command information that was included in the first and second requests. As such, with the suggestions asserted by HSU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration HSU’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify HSU’s explicit teachings such that “wherein the request and the another request are a same request” with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so would be to simplify the namespace creation process by decreasing the number of transactions between the host and memory controller.
With respect to Claim 8, HSU discloses a memory sub-system, comprising:
a host interface configured to operate on a computer bus (¶[0017] – “As shown in FIG. 1, the memory controller 110 may comprise … a transmission interface circuit 118, where these components maybe coupled to each other through a bus”);
non-volatile memory cells (Fig 1, NV memory 120); and
a controller configured to:
receive a request to create a first namespace (Abstract – “receiving a first namespace (NS) management command from the host device; in response to the first NS management command, establishing a first NS adopting the first LBA format”); and
create, in response to the request, the first namespace (Abstract – “in response to the first NS management command, establishing a first NS adopting the first LBA format”) and create, in response to another request, a second namespace (Abstract – “receiving a second NS management command from the host device; and in response to the second NS management command, establishing a second NS adopting the second LBA format”) having a same storage capacity as the first namespace (¶[0042] – “the NS 311 and 312 have the same storage capacity”), wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level (¶[0039] – “A number LBC1 of first logical blocks within the NS 311 is equal to a first predetermined number, and a size of each first logical block within the first logical blocks is equal to a first predetermined size (e.g. 0.5 KB) … In addition, a number LBC2 of second logical blocks within NS 312 is equal to a second predetermined number, and a size of each second logical block within the second logical blocks is equal to a second predetermined size (e.g. 4 KB)”), wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system (Fig 3 depicts NS 311 and 312 mapping to L2P Tables 321 and 322 respectively with the L2P tables both mapping to Storage Space 330).
HSU may not explicitly disclose wherein the request and the another request are a same request.
However, HSU states that first and second namespaces may be created in response to first and second requests which at least suggests that multiple namespaces may be created by the same request if the same request had the same command information that was included in the first and second requests. As such, with the suggestions asserted by HSU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration HSU’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify HSU’s explicit teachings such that “wherein the request and the another request are a same request” with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so would be to simplify the namespace creation process by decreasing the number of transactions between the host and memory controller.
With respect to Claim 15, HSU discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions which, when executed in a memory sub-system, cause the memory sub-system to perform a method, comprising:
receiving, in the memory sub-system, a request to create a first namespace (Abstract – “receiving a first namespace (NS) management command from the host device; in response to the first NS management command, establishing a first NS adopting the first LBA format”);
creating, in response to the request, the first namespace (Abstract – “in response to the first NS management command, establishing a first NS adopting the first LBA format”) and creating, in response to another request, a second namespace (Abstract – “receiving a second NS management command from the host device; and in response to the second NS management command, establishing a second NS adopting the second LBA format”) having a same storage capacity as the first namespace (¶[0042] – “the NS 311 and 312 have the same storage capacity”), wherein the first namespace has a first granularity level and the second namespace has a second granularity level different from the first granularity level (¶[0039] – “A number LBC1 of first logical blocks within the NS 311 is equal to a first predetermined number, and a size of each first logical block within the first logical blocks is equal to a first predetermined size (e.g. 0.5 KB) … In addition, a number LBC2 of second logical blocks within NS 312 is equal to a second predetermined number, and a size of each second logical block within the second logical blocks is equal to a second predetermined size (e.g. 4 KB)”), wherein the first namespace and the second namespace are configured to represent a storage capacity provided by a same set of storage resources in the memory sub-system (Fig 3 depicts NS 311 and 312 mapping to L2P Tables 321 and 322 respectively with the L2P tables both mapping to Storage Space 330); and
exposing, by the memory sub-system, the second namespace (¶[0036] discusses that access commands may be submitted by a host to access storage via the second namespace).
HSU may not explicitly disclose wherein the request and the another request are a same request.
However, HSU states that first and second namespaces may be created in response to first and second requests which at least suggests that multiple namespaces may be created by the same request if the same request had the same command information that was included in the first and second requests. As such, with the suggestions asserted by HSU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration HSU’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify HSU’s explicit teachings such that “wherein the request and the another request are a same request” with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so would be to simplify the namespace creation process by decreasing the number of transactions between the host and memory controller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are allowed over prior art.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are further allowed (e.g. are patent eligible).
Exemplary Dependent Claim 2 (and similarly Claims 9 and 16) further limits the parent claim to include “providing, by the memory sub-system, access to addresses in the second namespace via the mapping between logical addresses defined in the first namespace and physical addresses of the set of storage resources”. While prior art including HSU discloses multiple namespaces each with a respective logical-to-physical mapping table and prior art including PINTO (US Patent 12,106,134) discloses access support for the same physical address by multiple namespaces, prior art has not be found to anticipate or render obvious accessing memory using a second namespace via an address mapping defined by a first namespace as recited in the claims.
The Office would like to emphasize that while one or more reasons are offered as to why the claims are allowable over the prior art, it is each claim, taken as a whole, including interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements which are allowable over the prior art of record and not any individual limitation of a claim.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure teach related management of multiple namespaces in storage systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T LOONAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Arpan 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.
/ERIC T LOONAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights