Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in U.S. Patent No. 10,776,023

This analysis examines the prior art references cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,023. Each reference is evaluated for its potential to anticipate the claims of the '023 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The core invention of the '023 patent is a data storage device with a controller that uses a configurable "storage device policy" to manage how and where data is stored, and to control access and deletion based on that policy.

Independent Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,023

A method for a data storage device, comprising:

• Receiving, by a device controller of the data storage device, a storage device policy.
• In response to a storage request, storing content included in the storage request in a storage media of the data storage device in accordance with the storage device policy.
• Recording storage information for the content to a memory of the data storage device, wherein the storage information includes a content identifier for the content.
• In response to a retrieval request including the content identifier, retrieving the content from the storage media in accordance with the storage information.
• Refusing a delete request for the content based on the storage information.
• Storing the storage information at a remote location.

Below is an assessment of key prior art references cited by the patent examiner.

---

U.S. Patent No. 9,489,204 B2

• Full Citation: US 9489204 B2, "System and method for enforcing storage policies for data objects"
• Filing Date: March 15, 2013
• Publication Date: November 8, 2016
• Assignee: NetApp, Inc.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for managing data storage in a networked environment. It details a "policy engine" that enforces storage policies for data objects across various storage systems. These policies can dictate where data is stored, how it's protected (e.g., replication, snapshots), and its retention period. A central management server can define and distribute these policies to the storage systems.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • Claim 1: This reference appears to disclose several elements of claim 1. It describes receiving and using storage policies to manage data storage. The system stores objects and metadata (storage information) and uses this to retrieve the data. It also covers data retention policies, which aligns with the concept of refusing a delete request. The management of data across a network could be interpreted as storing some information at a remote location. However, the '204 patent focuses on a higher-level, network-wide policy enforcement rather than a policy operating within the device controller of a single storage device, which is a key aspect of the '023 patent. The '023 patent's novelty may lie in the device-level customizability and control, as opposed to a centralized network management approach.

U.S. Patent No. 8,832,367 B2

• Full Citation: US 8832367 B2, "Method and apparatus for data object storage and retrieval"
• Filing Date: March 26, 2012
• Publication Date: September 9, 2014
• Assignee: Cleversafe, Inc.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a method for storing data objects in a dispersed storage network. It involves encoding a data object into a plurality of "slices" and distributing these slices across different storage units. The system uses a "storage matrix" and access policies to manage how these slices are stored and retrieved. Policies can define the level of redundancy and security.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • Claim 1: This reference teaches the use of policies to determine how data is stored (e.g., the encoding and dispersal method). It also involves storing metadata (storage information) to locate and reassemble the data object. While it deals with storage policies, the focus is on a distributed network of storage units (a "storage grid") and the mathematical transformation of data for that environment. It does not appear to describe a single, self-contained storage device with an on-board, user-configurable controller that manages its own internal media based on a received policy in the manner described in the '023 patent. The concept of refusing a delete request or storing information remotely is also not central to this disclosure.

U.S. Patent No. 8,683,163 B2

• Full Citation: US 8683163 B2, "System and method for providing policy-based cloud storage"
• Filing Date: March 24, 2011
• Publication Date: March 25, 2014
• Assignee: Symantec Corporation
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that provides policy-based storage in a cloud environment. A "policy engine" receives data and associated policies from a user. Based on these policies, the engine determines which cloud storage provider(s) to use for storing the data. Policies can relate to cost, performance, security, and geographic location.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • Claim 1: While this patent uses the term "policy-based storage," its implementation is at the cloud gateway or broker level, not at the individual storage device level. The "device controller" in this context is a system that decides which cloud service to send the data to, rather than how to physically place data on its own internal storage media. It does not disclose the low-level, device-specific customization that is central to the '023 patent, such as altering recording density or managing media defects based on a user-defined policy.

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0159085 A1

• Full Citation: US 20120159085 A1, "Storage device with adaptable parameters"
• Filing Date: December 20, 2010
• Publication Date: June 21, 2012
• Assignee: LSI Corporation
• Brief Description: This application describes a storage device (like an SSD) that can adapt its internal operating parameters based on its usage history or commands from a host system. For example, it might adjust error correction levels, wear-leveling algorithms, or cache management strategies based on the workload it experiences.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • Claim 1: This is a highly relevant prior art reference. It teaches a storage device that can modify its behavior based on a set of parameters, which is analogous to a "storage device policy." A host can send commands to alter these parameters, which is similar to "receiving a storage device policy." The device then stores data according to these new parameters. The key distinction may be the scope and flexibility of the "policy" in the '023 patent. The '085 application appears to focus on pre-defined, adaptable parameters, whereas the '023 patent suggests a more open-ended system where a user could provide new algorithms or a more complex set of rules (e.g., via libraries as shown in Fig. 7A and 7B). However, this reference does challenge the novelty of a storage device's behavior being configurable by an external entity.

U.S. Patent No. 7,539,823 B2

• Full Citation: US 7539823 B2, "Method and system for automatically preserving persistent storage"
• Filing Date: August 8, 2001
• Publication Date: May 26, 2009
• Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that protects a storage device from unwanted alterations. A "Redirection Driver" intercepts read/write requests. Based on a policy, it can redirect writes to a separate, non-protected area, leaving the original data intact. This is often used for creating a "snapshot" or a protected state for a system.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • Claim 1: This reference is relevant to the "refusing a delete request" element of the claim. The redirection driver, based on a policy, effectively prevents the overwriting or deletion of data in a protected area. It demonstrates a form of policy-based control over storage operations. However, the primary purpose is system protection and redirection, not the granular, user-defined control over physical storage characteristics (like recording density or defect management) as envisioned in the '023 patent. The '823 patent's "policy" seems less about optimizing storage trade-offs and more about enforcing a binary "protected" or "unprotected" state. It also does not explicitly teach storing the full set of "storage information" at a remote location as a primary mode of operation.

Conclusion

While several prior art references touch upon policy-based data management, they generally do so at a higher level of abstraction, such as in a distributed network or a cloud storage gateway. The most challenging reference for the novelty of claim 1 appears to be US 2012/0159085 A1, which discloses a storage device with adaptable internal parameters that can be set by a host. The patentability of the '023 patent's claims likely hinges on the specific implementation of the "storage device policy" as a more flexible and powerful framework than simply adjusting pre-set parameters, allowing for custom algorithms and fine-grained control over the physical storage media, as well as the combination of all the claimed elements, including the remote storage of metadata and the refusal of delete requests based on this policy.