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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 14618999 (U.S. Patent No. 8850108), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 22-41 are not supported by the disclosure of parent application 14618999 (U.S. Patent No. 8850108) and therefore are not entitled to the earlier benefit claim.
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 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent make obvious the claims of the pending application in that the claims are directed to substantially the same subject matter as the parent case though not necessarily presented in the same sequential order or the same claim numbering as shown in the table below (for purposes of illustration rather than limitation).
Instant Application: 19/242,159
Patent: 13,341,848
Claim 1. A storage system, comprising :a plurality of managed flash storage devices; and one or more storage controllers, operatively coupled to the plurality of managed flash storage devices that offload management responsibilities to one or more storage system controllers, configured to: transmit, to one or more data processing units (DPUs), a mapping of portions of a dataset that designates one or more of the plurality of managed flash storage devices that store corresponding portions of the dataset; and receive, from a DPU of the one or more DPUs, a request for accessing a portion of the dataset stored at a particular managed flash storage device of the one or more of the plurality of managed flash storage devices indicated by the mapping of the portions of the dataset.
Claim 1. A storage system, comprising: a plurality of managed flash storage devices; and a plurality of storage system controllers, operatively coupled and external to the plurality of managed flash storage devices that offload management responsibilities to the plurality of storage system controllers, configured to: transmit, to a data processing unit (DPU) communicatively coupled to the storage system via one or more networks, a mapping of portions of a dataset that designates designate one of a storage system controller of the plurality of storage controllers or a managed flash storage device of the plurality of managed flash storage devices to process requests for corresponding portions of the dataset; and receive, from the DPU, a request for accessing a portion of the dataset by a particular storage system controller of the plurality of storage controllers or a particular managed flash storage device of the plurality of managed flash storage devices designed to process requests for the portion of the dataset.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Amano et al. (2007/0266203).
Regarding claim 1, Amano et al. discloses a storage system [FIG. 1], comprising: a plurality of managed flash storage devices [FIG. 1: discs]; and one or more storage controllers, operatively coupled to the plurality of managed flash storage devices that offload management responsibilities to one or more storage system controllers [FIG. 1: disk array controllers], configured to: transmit, to one or more data processing units (DPUs) [transmit to computer and CPU coupled to disk array via switch], a mapping of portions of a dataset that designates one or more of the plurality of managed flash storage devices that store corresponding portions of the dataset [¶0028: second controller accepts an indication corresponding to each storage device from the computer and the first storage device and when the prepare indication is received can reserve at least one storage LU that is mapped with the indicated storage device, can read data from the object tape]; and receive, from a DPU of the one or more DPUs, a request for accessing a portion of the dataset stored at a particular managed flash storage device of the one or more of the plurality of managed flash storage devices indicated by the mapping of the portions of the dataset [¶0028: a second controller can accept an indication corresponding to each storage device, the indication is received reserve one storage LU that is mapped with the storage device and read data from the object tape].
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the rationale in the rejection of claim 1 is herein incorporated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al. (2007/0266203) and Rose (2006/0026300).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 17, Amano et al. does not explicitly disclose the storage system of claim 1, wherein the DPU is to translate the request from a front end protocol used by an application executed by a client device to a back end protocol used by the storage system.
Rose, however, discloses the DPU is to translate the request from a front end protocol used by an application executed by a client device to a back end protocol used by the storage system [¶0048: translate front-end communications protocol to backend communications protocol].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have translated the data request from the front end protocol to a backend protocol in order to provide a system for connecting in real-time an internet-based network interface to backend systems having associated backend protocols (¶0007).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the rationale in the rejection of claim 1 is herein incorporated.
Claim(s) 3-8, 11-15, 18, 19-20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al. (2007/0266203) and Rose (2006/0026300) and Brooker et al. (8,832,234).
Regarding claims 3, 11, 18, Amano et al. does not explicitly disclose the storage system of claim 1, but Brooker et al. discloses the processing device is further configured to: identify a modification to the mapping in the storage system [Abstract; Col. 20: 47-57: translating by the data mapping engine using the received portion of the data map a set of data requests into one set of server requests that enables location of data responsive to data request within a data storage system]; and transmit, to the DPU, the modified mapping [Col. 20: 47-57: determining based on the response from the data storage system that the received portion of the data map should be updated, updating based on the response from the data storage system the received portion of the data map and transmitting information related to the updated portion of the data map to the map authority].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have identify a modification in the mapping in order to provide access to data, data storage and related services to client entities (Col. 2: 5).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 19 Brooker et al. discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: detect an addition of one or more authorities assigned to one or more storage devices added to the storage system [Col. 20: 47-57: determining based on the response from the data storage system that the received portion of the data map should be updated, updating based on the response from the data storage system the received portion of the data map and transmitting information related to the updated portion of the data map to the map authority]; and transmit, to the DPU, an updated mapping of the one or more authorities assigned to the one or more storage devices added to the storage system [Col. 20: 47-57: determining based on the response from the data storage system that the received portion of the data map should be updated, updating based on the response from the data storage system the received portion of the data map and transmitting information related to the updated portion of the data map to the map authority].
Regarding claims 5, 13, 20, Brooker et al. discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: identify a plurality of client devices comprising corresponding DPUs [FIG. 1, 3, 4]; and provide, to the corresponding DPUs, the mapping of portions of the dataset [Col. 20: 47-57: determining based on the response from the data storage system that the received portion of the data map should be updated, updating based on the response from the data storage system the received portion of the data map and transmitting information related to the updated portion of the data map to the map authority].
Regarding claims 6, 14, Brooker et al. discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the DPU is to encrypt one or more portions of the dataset [Col. 14: 17-23].
Regarding claim 7, 15, Brooker et al. discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the storage system comprises a plurality of storage nodes and wherein a plurality of authorities are distributed across two or more of the plurality of storage nodes [FIG. 2, 3: service policy enforcement, storage policy enforcement, Map Authority].
Regarding claim 8, Brooker et al. discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the storage system comprises a vast storage system [FIG. 2: low latency data store; high durability data store].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Surtani (US8949294) discloses data grid supporting multiple protocols comprising receive an object and a client to store the object in the data store using a first protocol. Mu et al. (7905656) discloses intercept commands between protocol interface front and back ends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARDOCHEE CHERY whose telephone number is (571)272-4246. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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.
/MARDOCHEE CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights