Prior art

Based on my analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,907,553 and its cited references, the following prior art is most relevant to the patent's claims.

The core invention of US 11,907,553, as outlined in independent claim 1, is a data storage device with an on-board controller that can receive a "storage device policy." This policy dictates how the device handles data, including how and where it is stored, whether it can be deleted, and, crucially, allows for storage information (metadata) to be stored at a remote location separate from the device itself.

Analysis of Cited Prior Art

The following patents were cited during the prosecution of the '553 patent and are relevant to its key concepts.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,631,142 B2: "System and method for enforcing storage policies in a storage device"

• Full Citation:

  • Patent Number: US 7,631,142 B2
  • Title: System and method for enforcing storage policies in a storage device
  • Inventors: Minwen Ji, et al.
  • Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
  • Publication Date: December 8, 2009
  • Filing Date: November 27, 2006

• Brief Description:
  This patent describes a storage device that includes a policy enforcement module directly on the device. This module intercepts I/O commands and enforces policies related to security and data retention. For example, it can be configured with a policy to make certain data immutable (write-once, read-many or WORM), thereby preventing its deletion or modification for a specified period. This allows the drive to enforce data governance rules autonomously.

• Potential Anticipation of Claim 1 of US 11,907,553:
  This reference is highly relevant as it discloses a storage device with an integrated controller that can receive and enforce policies (Claim 1, elements a, b). It explicitly teaches the concept of refusing a delete or overwrite request based on a retention policy (element e). It also inherently requires the device to record storage information, such as retention metadata, to enforce these policies (element c) and to retrieve the data (element d). However, this patent focuses on storing the policies and related metadata on the device itself to ensure it can function autonomously. It does not appear to teach or suggest storing the metadata at a separate, remote location (element f), which is a key limitation of Claim 1 of the '553 patent. Therefore, while it anticipates many elements, it does not fully anticipate all limitations of Claim 1.

---

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0317208 A1: "Intelligent storage device and method for processing I/O requests"

• Full Citation:

  • Publication Number: US 2015/0317208 A1
  • Title: Intelligent storage device and method for processing I/O requests
  • Inventors: Sang-Lyul Lee, et al.
  • Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Publication Date: November 5, 2015
  • Filing Date: July 24, 2015

• Brief Description:
  This document describes an "intelligent" storage device, such as an SSD, that contains a programmable processor capable of executing user-defined applications directly on the drive. This "in-storage processing" allows the drive to handle more than just simple read/write commands; it can perform complex data operations, offloading them from the host system. The device is also network-aware, allowing it to communicate over a network.

• Potential Anticipation of Claim 1 of US 11,907,553:
  This reference discloses the foundational hardware and software architecture for the '553 patent's invention. The ability to run user-defined applications on the storage device's controller is broad enough to encompass the concept of receiving and executing a "storage device policy" (elements a, b). Such an application could be programmed to implement write-protection rules (element e) and manage its own metadata (element c). Critically, because the described intelligent drive is network-capable, an application running on it could be designed to communicate with a remote server to store its metadata (element f). While this reference does not explicitly bundle these specific functions into a single "storage device policy," it describes a device that is inherently capable of performing every step outlined in Claim 1. This makes it a very strong piece of prior art that could be used in an argument that Claim 1 is obvious, if not fully anticipated.

---

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,930,649 B2: "Method and system for managing storage of data in a storage system"

• Full Citation:

  • Patent Number: US 8,930,649 B2
  • Title: Method and system for managing storage of data in a storage system
  • Inventors: Ronald S. Karr, et al.
  • Assignee: NetApp, Inc.
  • Publication Date: January 6, 2015
  • Filing Date: April 19, 2011

• Brief Description:
  This patent relates to a storage system where an administrator can apply a wide range of policies to data containers. These policies can define services such as data retention, snapshot schedules, replication, and Quality of Service (QoS). A central management system applies and enforces these policies across the storage array.

• Potential Anticipation of Claim 1 of US 11,907,553:
  This reference strongly teaches the use of policies for data management, including retention policies that could prevent deletion (element e). However, the architecture described in the '649 patent appears to rely on a higher-level storage controller or management server to enforce these policies on the storage devices. This is different from the architecture in Claim 1 of the '553 patent, where the policy execution and decision-making logic resides within the device controller of the individual storage device itself. Furthermore, it does not explicitly teach the concept of offloading the storage metadata to a separate remote location as an architectural choice.