Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are made in view of Nara (US Pub # 20210286684).
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nara (US Pub # 20210286684) in view of Neall (U.S Pub # 20190095297) and in further view of Lango (U.S Pat # 7809693).
With regards to claim 1, Nara discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, for a database at a first location, a backup of the database at a second location (Fig. 1A #112 primary data, #116 secondary copies [0120] creating secondary copies 116 for primary data 112. [0125] secondary copies 106 are stored on secondary storage devices(s) 108);
detecting a failure of the database ([0129] failed client computing device 102); and
restoring the database using the backup at the second location ([0129] restore using secondary copies 116), at least by:
generating one or more sparse data files or blocks at a location different from the second location ([0253] secondary storage computing devices 106 may create sparse files).
Nara does not disclose however Neall discloses:
analyzing redo records to identify corresponding data files or blocks to be fetched from the backup at the second location ([0070] indicator within the nologging redo records 150 informs the standby recovery process 160 whether or not to look for the corresponding data blocks 130 in the memory 125 or to just fetch the data corresponding to the data blocks identified within nologging redo records 150 from the primary database),
fetching, from the backup at the second location, the corresponding data files or blocks identified by analyzing the redo records ([0071] standby recovery process 160 may execute a fetch command to fetch a block image from the primary database corresponding to the block or block range as indicated in nologging redo record), and
applying the redo records to the corresponding data files or blocks ([0067, 0074] standby recovery process waits for the API to complete and applies the fetched blocks directly to the standby database. The nologging redo record is considered applied only when the corresponding invalid data blocks are resolved).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara by the system of Neall to determine which data files to be restored from a backup.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order apply a copy of one or more data blocks to update the standby database (Neall [0008]).
Lango discloses:
wherein the database is accessible to user sessions using at least remaining sparse data files or blocks of the one or more sparse data files or blocks ([Col. 24 lines 1-15] Additionally, as noted above, once the restoration of a sparse volume has initiated, the volume is illustratively available for all data access operations).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara and Neall by the system of Lango to more effectively perform a restoration operation through pointers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure a volume is recovered as soon as possible and accessible to clients as quickly as possible (Lango [Col. 4 lines 5-19]).
Claims 11 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 2, Nara does not disclose however Neall discloses:
wherein a result of applying the redo records to the corresponding data files or blocks is stored in the database ([0074] apply to standby database).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara by the system of Neall to determine which data files to be restored from a backup.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order apply a copy of one or more data blocks to update the standby database (Neall [0008]).
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 3, Nara does not disclose however Lango discloses:
wherein the sparse data files or blocks reference a corresponding backup copy at the second location ([Col. 16 lines 24-37, Col. Lines 30-51] instantiating a sparse volume within a file system of a storage system that is used to restore data from a secondary storage system on demand. A sparse volume is initialized with volume infrastructure metadata that utilizes pointers to data stored on the backing store), and the database is accessible to user sessions during execution of restore operations using at least references in remaining sparse data files or blocks ([Col. 24 lines 1-15] Additionally, as noted above, once the restoration of a sparse volume has initiated, the volume is illustratively available for all data access operations).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara and Neall by the system of Lango to more effectively perform a restoration operation through pointers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure a volume is recovered as soon as possible and accessible to clients as quickly as possible (Lagno [Col. 4 lines 5-19]).
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 4, Nara does not disclose however Neall discloses:
wherein respective redo records capture data to redo received instructions and applying a respective a respective redo record to a corresponding data file or block comprises at least updating the data or block using the respective redo record ([0050] update using the redo record).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara by the system of Neall to determine which data files to be restored from a backup.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order apply a copy of one or more data blocks to update the standby database (Neall [0008]).
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 5, Nara further discloses:
servicing a read or write request to the database having the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location and wherein corresponding data is fetched from the backup at the second location in response to a determination that the read or write request is to at least one of the one or more sparse data files or blocks ([0252] a first secondary copy operation on a first client computing device 102 could result in the creation of the first chunk folder 184 which includes container sparse files).
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 6-9, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nara (US Pub # 20210286684) in view of Neall (U.S Pub # 20190095297) and in further view of Lango (U.S Pat # 7809693) and Fang (U.S Pub # 20160321145).
With regards to claim 6, Nara further discloses:
servicing a read or write request to the database having the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location ([0253] container sparse files that may index data).
Nara does not disclose however Fang discloses:
wherein servicing the read or write request is executed before applying at least one redo record ([0040] redo phase after restore phase).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara, Neall and Lango by the system of Fang to apply redo records to a restored state to recover a database to a certain point of time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform a point in time recovery of a database (Fang [0003]).
With regards to claim 7, Nara does not disclose however Fang discloses:
populating all the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location ([0330] write to the sparse file).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara, Neall and Lango by the system of Fang to write backup data into a sparse file.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform a point in time recovery of a database (Fang [0003]).
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 8, Nara does not disclose however Fang discloses:
wherein populating all the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location comprises copying backup data at the second location to the location different from the second location and replacing contents of at least some of the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location with the data from the backup at the second location ([0330] worker node may write extent file data into the sparse file).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara, Neall and Lango by the system of Fang to write backup data into a sparse file.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform a point in time recovery of a database (Fang [0003]).
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 9, Nara does not disclose however Fang discloses:
wherein populating all the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location occurs at least partially after servicing a read or write request to the database having the one or more sparse data files or blocks at the location different from the second location ([0330] writing data to the sparse data, data that had been previously backed up to worker nodes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara, Neall and Lango by the system of Fang to write backup data into a sparse file.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform a point in time recovery of a database (Fang [0003]).
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nara (US Pub # 20210286684) in view of Neall (U.S Pub # 20190095297), Lango (U.S Pat # 7809693), Fang (U.S Pub # 20160321145) and in further view of Allard (U.S Pat # 10649850).
With regards to claim 10, Nara does not disclose however Allard discloses:
wherein populating all the one or more sparse data files or blocks is managed using a bloom filter or index structure, the bloom filter or index structure is processed to determine whether respective files or blocks are or might be sparse, and the bloom filter or index structure is modified to indicate that respective files or blocks are not sparse after populating the respective files or blocks ([Col. 11 lines 22-43] sparse indices used to manage archives stored and written in a volume).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nara, Neall, Lango and Fang by the system of Allard to manage sparse file allocations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize data performance and integrity on network computing and storage systems (Allard [Col. 1 lines 42-46]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166