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 responsive to the reply filed 29 August 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see page 6):
As amended, independent claim 1 recites selecting between migration techniques to rebalance available storage space among the plurality of resiliency groups based on the storage space available in the plurality of resiliency groups. Thus, the claimed selection is not merely an evaluation or judgment. Instead, the claimed selection controls how data is relocated within a storage system in order to rebalance available storage space among resiliency groups. The specification consistently describes this rebalancing as a technological operation that improves the operation of the storage system. For example, the specification explains that migration dynamically switches migration techniques to restore balance among write groups, reduce garbage collection pressure, avoid performance hotspots, and improve storage system scalability. Accordingly, the claims are directed to operation of a storage system that physically relocates data among resiliency groups in order to improve storage utilization within the storage system itself. Such operation cannot reasonably be characterized as merely performing a mental process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite making a selection between a first and second migration technique, and the claims specify what the migrations techniques are intended to do. However, the claims do not contain limitations that state that the selected migration technique is actually executed and that the data is physically relocated. The Examiner does agree that physically relocating data is not a mental process. The claims do not recite physically relocating data. The claims only recite selection of a migration technique to rebalance available storage space. There is no mention of physical relocation of data actually being performed.
Applicant argues (see page 7):
Even assuming, arguendo, that selecting between migration techniques could be characterized at some level of abstraction as an evaluation, the claims as amended are not directed merely to evaluating information. Rather, the claims recite a specific technological operation in which available storage space is received from storage devices and migration of data among resiliency groups is controlled to rebalance available storage space across the storage system. The claims therefore are directed to operation of a storage system rather than to a disembodied concept or mental process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any limitations that carry out of migration of data to rebalance available storage space. The claim limitations are directed to selection of a migration technique to be used. Utilizing the migration technique to carry out data migration would be an application of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (see page 7):
Even if the claims were considered to recite a judicial exception, the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application. The amended claims require selecting a migration technique for relocating data among resiliency groups to rebalance available storage space among the plurality of resiliency groups. This limitation is not merely a statement of intended use. Rather, it defines how the migration operation is performed and ties the claimed selection directly to management of storage resources within the storage system. As explained in the specification, rebalancing available storage space improves operation of the storage system by reducing imbalance among resiliency groups, improving storage utilization, reducing garbage collection pressure, and avoiding storage hotspots. Accordingly, the claims apply any alleged abstract idea in a practical application that improves operation of a storage system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite making a selection between a first and second migration technique, and the claims specify what the migrations techniques are intended to do. However, the claims do not contain limitations that state that the selected migration technique is actually executed and that the data is physically relocated. Utilizing the migration technique to carry out data migration would be an application of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (see page 7):
The Examiner further concludes that the claims merely recite generic computer components. Respectfully, the rejection overlooks the claim as a whole. The claims are not directed simply to generic data gathering or analysis. Instead, the claims recite coordinated operation of storage devices and a processing device to control relocation of data among resiliency groups in order to rebalance available storage space across the storage system. Viewed as an ordered combination, the claims define a particular technological solution for adaptive management of storage migration within a storage system. The claimed arrangement therefore amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite making a selection between a first and second migration technique, and the claims specify what the migrations techniques are intended to do. However, the claims do not contain limitations that state that the selected migration technique is actually executed and that the data is physically relocated. The Examiner does agree that physically relocating data is not a mental process. The claims do not recite physically relocating data. The claims only recite selection of a migration technique to rebalance available storage space. There is no mention of physical relocation of data actually being performed.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) monitoring storage space and selecting a migration technique.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations of receiving available storage space and selecting between a first migration technique and a second migration technique, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations are interpreted as a mental process since they are directed to observations, evaluations and judgements. The steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Lacking any additional elements, the claim similarly fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites one additional element – the migration technique is configurable to stripe data across the set of storage devices. This limitation further defines the migration techniques. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Claim 5 further defines the type of storage devices used in the system. The elements are generic computer components recited at a high level of granularity. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6 further defines the migration techniques. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations of receiving available storage space and selecting between a first migration technique and a second migration technique, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations are interpreted as a mental process since they are directed to observations, evaluations and judgements. The steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of a processor is recited at a high level of granularity performing a generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The claim similarly fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites one additional element – the migration technique is configurable to stripe data across the set of storage devices. This limitation further defines the migration techniques. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Claim 12 further defines the type of storage devices used in the system. The elements are generic computer components recited at a high level of granularity. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 13 further defines the migration techniques. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 15, the limitations of receiving available storage space and selecting between a first migration technique and a second migration technique, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations are interpreted as a mental process since they are directed to observations, evaluations and judgements. The steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Lacking any additional elements, the claim similarly fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites one additional element – the migration technique is configurable to stripe data across the set of storage devices. This limitation further defines the migration techniques. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Claim 19 further defines the type of storage devices used in the system. The elements are generic computer components recited at a high level of granularity. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 20 further defines the migration techniques. There are no additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
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 claims 1-7 and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,339. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1 and 8 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1 and 14, respectively, of the ‘339 patent as shown below.
The operations performed by the instructions of claim(s) 15 of the instant application are identical to the method steps of claim 1 in the ‘339. The claims differ in that claim(s) 15 of the instant application is/are directed to a computer program product that contains a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions that perform a series of operations. It is well-known in the art to write program instructions, and store these instructions on a computer readable medium. This allows a user to implement a specific method on a computer, and Official Notice is hereby taken.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to create program instructions which are stored on a computer readable medium to allow a user to implement a specific method on a computer system.
12,373,339
19/186,162
1. A method comprising:
(A) receiving, by a storage system controller from a plurality of storage devices of a storage system, storage space available in a plurality of resiliency groups of the plurality of storage devices;
(B) and selecting between a first migration technique and a second migration technique to relocate data from a first resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups to a second resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups,
(D) wherein both the first migration technique and the second migration technique are configured to stripe data across a set of storage devices in the second resiliency group.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
(C) performing byte for byte copying to rebalance space available across the plurality of resiliency groups, responsive to detecting and imbalance of available storage space across the plurality of resiliency groups.
1. A method comprising:
(A) receiving, by a processing device from a plurality of storage devices of a storage system, storage space available in a plurality of resiliency groups of the plurality of storage devices;
(B) and selecting between a first migration technique and a second migration technique to relocate data from a first resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups to a second resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups
(C) to rebalance available storage space among the plurality of resiliency groups based on the storage space available in the plurality of resiliency groups.
2. The method of claim 1,
(D) wherein both the first migration technique and the second migration technique are configured to stripe data across a set of storage devices in the second resiliency group.
Claims 2/3/4/5/7
Claims 3/4/5/6/7
14. A storage system, comprising:
(A) a plurality of storage devices; and a storage system controller, operatively coupled to the plurality of storage devices, comprising a processing device configured to:
(B) receive, from the plurality of storage devices, storage space available in a plurality of resiliency groups of the plurality of storage devices;
(C) and select between a first migration technique and a second migration technique to relocate data from a first resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups to a second resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups,
(E) wherein both the first migration technique and the second migration technique are configured to stripe data across a set of storage devices in the second resiliency group.
19. The storage system of claim 14, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
(D) perform byte for byte copying to rebalance space available across the plurality of resiliency groups, responsive to detecting and imbalance of available storage space across the plurality of resiliency groups.
8. A storage system, comprising:
(A) a plurality of storage devices; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the plurality of storage devices, comprising a configured to:
(B) receive, from the plurality of storage devices, storage space available in a plurality of resiliency groups of the plurality of storage devices;
(C) and select between a first migration technique and a second migration technique to relocate data from a first resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups to a second resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups
(D) to rebalance available storage space among the plurality of resiliency groups based on the storage space available in the plurality of resiliency groups.
9. The storage system of claim 8,
(E) wherein both the first migration technique and the second migration technique are configured to stripe data across a set of storage devices in the second resiliency group.
Claims 15/16/17/18/20
Claims 10/11/12/13/14
1. A method comprising:
(A) receiving, by a storage system controller from a plurality of storage devices of a storage system, storage space available in a plurality of resiliency groups of the plurality of storage devices;
(B) and selecting between a first migration technique and a second migration technique to relocate data from a first resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups to a second resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups,
(D) wherein both the first migration technique and the second migration technique are configured to stripe data across a set of storage devices in the second resiliency group.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
(C) performing byte for byte copying to rebalance space available across the plurality of resiliency groups, responsive to detecting and imbalance of available storage space across the plurality of resiliency groups.
15. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to:
(A) receive, from a plurality of storage devices of a storage system, storage space available in a plurality of resiliency groups of the plurality of storage devices;
(B) and select between a first migration technique and a second migration technique to relocate data from a first resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups to a second resiliency group of the plurality of resiliency groups
(C) to rebalance available storage space among the plurality of resiliency groups based on the storage space available in the plurality of resiliency groups.
16. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15,
(D) wherein both the first migration technique and the second migration technique are configured to stripe data across a set of storage devices in the second resiliency group.
Claim 2/3/4/5
Claim 17/18/19/20
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 EDWARD J DUDEK JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00A-4:00P.
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, Hosain T Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/EDWARD J DUDEK JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights