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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 11/7/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 11/7/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
a. Regarding claim(s) 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 7-9)
“B. The Cited Combination does NOT suggest or disclosure the claimed concept of communicating the notification to a second NVMe entity to inform the second NVMe entity of the connection loss between the CDC and the first NVMe entity to allow the second NVMe entity to determine an action that the second NVMe entity takes, if any, relative to the second NVMe entity's connection with the first NVMe entity, as
claimed herein
Each of the independent claims (Claims 1, 9, and 16) include a similar concept of communicating the notification to a second NVMe entity to inform the second NVMe entity of the connection loss between the CDC and the first NVMe entity to allow the second NVMe entity to determine an action that the second NVMe entity takes, if any, relative to the second NVMe entity's connection with the first NVMe entity. For example, if the connection between the first NVMe entity and the second NVMe entity is still online, the second NVMe entity may continue to maintain/use that connection-despite the loss of connection between the first NVMe entity and the CDC. Benefits of such an approach include that this process can reduce I/O churn and improve traffic stability. See, e.g., current Application at [0054]-[0056], FIG. 7, and FIG. 8.
For this claim element, the NFOA cites Wu at paragraphs [0055] and [0086]. See NFOA, p. 3-4 (Claim 1) and p. 5 (Claims 9 and 16). A review of these passage reveals several deficiencies.
The Wu application generally relates to a control method for edge node networks. In edge
computing environments, many edge nodes are deployed in remote, unattended areas, leading to
unstable network connections with the cloud management node. When an edge node disconnected
from the management node (i.e., is offline), the management node cannot determine its actual
operational state. Consequently, the management node cannot determine if the disconnected node
is simply autonomous or has failed, delaying detection and failure handling.
Wu provides a method to obtain the current node state of an offline edge node using a host
edge node (i.e., a neighboring online node). When the management node determines that an edge
node has gone offline (the offline node), the management node identifies an edge node that is
online and provides it with the offline node's connection information. Upon receiving this
information, the host edge node establishes a communication connection (e.g., a wireless
communication connection) with the offline edge node. Once connected, the host edge node
obtains the current node state of the offline edge node through this connection and transmits the
current node state of the offline edge node back to the management node. See, e.g., Wu at Abstract.
Wu fails to suggest or disclosure several elements. Paragraph [0055] merely discloses that
the management node sends connection information about the offline edge node to the host edge
node so that it can establish a communication connection with the offline edge node. This passage
illustrates that there is no pre-existing communication connection between the host edge node
and the offline edge node.
First, if there was an existing communication connection, the management node would not
need to provide host information to the host edge node so that it could establish a connection. The
host edge node would already know this information.
And second, the host edge node would not need to establish a connection with the offline
node because it would already have its connection. Thus, nowhere in Wu does it disclose that the
host edge node already has a connection with the offline edge node.
Given these critically missing aspects, it is clear that there is no notification to a second
NVMe entity to inform the second NVMe entity of the connection loss between the CDC and the
first NVMe entity to allow the second NVMe entity to determine an action that the second NVMe
entity takes, if any, relative to the second NVMe entity's connection with the first NVMe entity.
The second NVMe entity cannot determine any action relative to the second NVMe entity's
connection with the first NVMe entity, but no such connection exists in Wu. Furthermore, without
an existing connection, the CDC is not providing the claimed notification to the host edge node.
A fair review of Wu reveals that it operates in a different environment (e.g., NOT an NVMe environment) and functions in a different way to achieve a very different result. All these differences reveal a Wu document that is fatally flawed relative to the current Application. Thus,
the Wu-Koop-Mandrell combination, separately and in combination, fails.”
In response to argument [a], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interprets the claim limitation as "send a notification to the second NVMe entity of a connection loss between the first NVMe entity and the Centralized Discovery Controller (CDC to allow the second NVMe entity to determine an action that the second NVMe entity takes, if any, relative to the second NVMe entity's connection with the first NVMe entity ". Therefore, Wu teaches this interpretation because "[0036], even if the offline edge node, that is the disconnected node, exists, the management node may obtain the node state of the offline node. Therefore, the management node may determine whether the node can provide service normally. [0052], FIG.3; the management node may detect websocket connections with the edge nodes in the edge node network through the monitoring module. As such, whether the edge node that is disconnected from the management node (i.e., the offline edge node) exists may be detected. [0053], at 302, when at least one offline edge node is detected, the management node determines a host edge node for the offline edge node. [0054], the management node may select a suitable host edge node for the offline edge node according to the current node state of the edge nodes in the edge node network. [0055], at 303, the management node sends the host information to the host edge node so that the host edge node establishes the communication connection with the offline edge node and obtains the current node state of the offline edge node through the communication connection. [examiner notes: the offline node interprets as the first NVMe. The host edge node interprets as the second NVMe node. The management node interprets as the CDC. The host edge node receives the host information of the offline edge node when the management node detects a node offline/disconnected. Therefore, the host information is a to the second NVMe entity of a connection loss between the first NVMe entity and the CDC. The management node will perform an action to obtain the current node state of the offline edge node.]”.
Furthermore, the combination of Wu, Koop and Mandrell are in the same field of computer networking, all references are relative to management of devices/network elements ‘connection in computer network.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1,3, 5, 6, 8, 9 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220239748 A1) in view of Koop (US 20100238940 A1) in view of Mandrell (US 20060171330 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, Wu teaches a computer processor-implemented method comprising: (Wu, Fig.9) in response to a Controller centralized discovery controller (CDC), which operates in a non-volatile memory express over fabric (NVMe- oF) environment, determining a connection loss between the CDC and a first non-volatile memory express (NVMe) entity, (Wu, [0043], any one of the edge nodes in the edge node network detects its disconnection from the management node. [examiner notes: the management node interprets as the CDC. Any one of the edge nodes in the edge node network disconnected from the management node interprets as the first NVMe entity.])
generating a notification that indicates the connection loss between the CDC and the first NVMe entity, but the CDC does not, at least initially, remove the first NVMe entity from a name server database, a zone database, or both despite the connection loss; (Wu, [0055] At 303, the management node sends the host information to the host edge node so that the host edge node establishes the communication connection with the offline edge node and obtains the current node state of the offline edge node through the communication connection. [0086], when the current node state of the offline edge node indicates that the offline edge node is in the autonomous state, the management node may also update the state of the edge node in the database and wait for the recovery of the connection between the offline edge node and the management node. [0139], when the offline edge node detects the recovery of the connection with the management node, the host edge node may close the communication connection with the offline edge node, delete the communication profile, and send a logout message to the communication base station to notify the communication base station to log out the second communication identifier. [examiner notes: the management node interprets as the CDC.])
communicating the notification to a second NVMe entity to inform the second NVMe entity of the connection loss between the CDC and the first NVMe entity to allow the second NVMe entity to determine an action that the second NVMe entity takes, if any, relative to from the second NVMe entity’s connection with the first NVMe entity; and (Wu, [0036], even if the offline edge node, that is the disconnected node, exists, the management node may obtain the node state of the offline node. Therefore, the management node may determine whether the node can provide service normally. [0052], FIG.3; the management node may detect websocket connections with the edge nodes in the edge node network through the monitoring module. As such, whether the edge node that is disconnected from the management node (i.e., the offline edge node) exists may be detected. [0053], at 302, when at least one offline edge node is detected, the management node determines a host edge node for the offline edge node. [0054], the management node may select a suitable host edge node for the offline edge node according to the current node state of the edge nodes in the edge node network. [0055], at 303, the management node sends the host information to the host edge node so that the host edge node establishes the communication connection with the offline edge node and obtains the current node state of the offline edge node through the communication connection. [examiner notes: the offline node interprets as the first NVMe. The host edge node interprets as the second NVMe node. The management node interprets as the CDC. The host edge node receives the host information of the offline edge node when the management node detects a node offline/disconnected. Therefore, the host information is a to the second NVMe entity of a connection loss between the first NVMe entity and the CDC. The management node will perform an action to obtain the current node state of the offline edge node.])
Wu does not teach in response to the CDC determining a purging condition for the first NVMe entity, removing the first NVMe entity from the name server database or from the zone database or from both, wherein a query response made by the CDC in response to a query by the second NVMe entity: expressly contains an indicator that the second NVMe entity should disconnect from the first NVMe entity, or does not contain the first NVMe entity, or both.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches in response to the CDC determining a purging condition for the first NVMe entity, removing the first NVMe entity from the name server database or from the zone database or from both, (Koop, [0153], If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node connection is loss, the node is removed from the database. [examiner notes: the node connection is loss interprets to be purging condition.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify in response to the CDC determining a purging condition for the first NVMe entity, removing the first NVMe entity from the name server database or from the zone database or from both as taught by Koop. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to ascertaining presence in wireless networks (Koop, [0006]).
Wu does not teach wherein a query response made by the CDC in response to a query by the second NVMe entity: expressly contains an indicator that the second NVMe entity should disconnect from the first NVMe entity, or does not contain the first NVMe entity, or both.
Mandrell however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein a query response made by the CDC in response to a query by the second NVMe entity: expressly contains an indicator that the second NVMe entity should disconnect from the first NVMe entity, or does not contain the first NVMe entity, or both. (Mandrell, [0012], FIG.3; after receiving an RSCN 324, an initiator must then query the name server 318 for additional details regarding the change. A protocol used within the name server 318 allows the initiator to make queries to the name server 318, such as whether a device exists at a particular address, the type of device that exists at the particular address, or other details about the device. These query commands are well-documented in the FC specifications. If the device is no longer found in the name server database 320, the initiator knows that the device has been removed from the loop. If the device is found in the name server database 320, then the initiator knows that the device was added, and can query the name server as described above to receive additional information about the added device. [examiner notes: the initiator interprets to be the second NVMe entity, the device interprets to be the first NVMe entity.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify wherein a query response made by the CDC in response to a query by the second NVMe entity: expressly contains an indicator that the second NVMe entity should disconnect from the first NVMe entity, or does not contain the first NVMe entity, or both as taught by Mandrell. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to process a large number of device changes in a storage system in an efficient manner to improve throughput and reduce traffic (Mandrell, [0015]).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 3, the processor-implemented method of claim 1,
Wu does not teach wherein the notification further indicates that the first NVMe entity is temporarily unreachable due to the connection loss.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the notification further indicates that the first NVMe entity is temporarily unreachable due to the connection loss. (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 5, the processor-implemented method of claim 1,
Wu does not teach wherein removing the first NVMe entity from the name server database, the zone database or both is performed by a networking component different from the CDC.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein removing the first NVMe entity from the name server database or the zone database or both is performed by a networking component different from the CDC. (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the processor-implemented method of claim 5,
Wu does not teach wherein removing is performed according at least one of a policy, a configuration setting, or a maintenance procedure.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein removing is performed according at least one of a policy, a configuration setting, or a maintenance procedure. (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 11, the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 9,
Wu does not teach wherein the NVMe entity is removed from the name server database or form the zone database or both, according to at least one of a policy, a configuration setting, or a maintenance procedure, by a networking component different from the CDC.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the NVMe entity is removed from the name server database or form the zone database or both, according to at least one of a policy, a configuration setting, or a maintenance procedure, by a networking component different from the CDC (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 12, the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 9,
Wu does not teach wherein the notification further indicates that the NVMe entity is temporarily unreachable due to a connectivity failure.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the notification further indicates that the NVMe entity is temporarily unreachable due to a connectivity failure. (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 13, the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 9,
Wu–Koop-Shaout teach further comprising not receiving a notification response to determining the connection loss. (Wu, [0055] At 303, the management node sends the host information to the host edge node so that the host edge node establishes the communication connection with the offline edge node and obtains the current node state of the offline edge node through the communication connection.)
Regarding claim(s) 14, the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 9,
Wu–Koop-Shaout teach further comprising receiving a notification in response to the CDC determining the purging condition. (Wu, [0055] At 303, the management node sends the host information to the host edge node so that the host edge node establishes the communication connection with the offline edge node and obtains the current node state of the offline edge node through the communication connection.)
Regarding claim(s) 17, the system of claim 16,
Wu does not teach wherein the notification further indicates that the first NVMe entity is temporarily unreachable due to a connectivity failure.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the notification further indicates that the first NVMe entity is temporarily unreachable due to a connectivity failure. (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the system of claim 16,
Wu does not teach wherein a networking component different from the CDC performs removing according at least one of a policy, a configuration setting, or a maintenance procedure.
Koop however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein a networking component different from the CDC performs removing according at least one of a policy, a configuration setting, or a maintenance procedure. (Koop, [0153], when all retries and communication mechanisms outbound to a node have been tried unsuccessfully, the node, rather than being immediately removed from the gateway server's database, is notated therein as being inactive. If communication is re-established with the node before a system-determined timeout period, which can be specified by a user, then the node is considered active once again. If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node is removed from the database.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
2. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Koop in view of Mandrell further in view of Lee (US20110078772A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8, the processor-implemented method of claim 1,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell teach wherein the purging condition comprises at least one of: a termination request by the first NVMe entity, a lack of communication by the first NVMe entity for a period of time, or detecting by the CDC at least one of: a name server move, a replacement of the first NVMe entity on a physical switch port, a forced removal of the first NVMe entity from the name server database, a deletion of an NVMe entity reference from the zone database, or a deletion of the first NVMe entity based on a time-out condition.
Lee however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the purging condition comprises at least one of: a termination request by the first NVMe entity, a lack of communication by the first NVMe entity for a period of time, or detecting by the CDC at least one of: a name server move, a replacement of the first NVMe entity on a physical switch port, a forced removal of the first NVMe entity from the name server database, a deletion of an NVMe entity reference from the zone database, or a deletion of the first NVMe entity based on a time-out condition. (Lee, [0049], If the DM server determines that the security domain request is a removal request (block 521), the DM server receives information about the certificate subsystem being removed from the security domain. At block 523, the DM server deletes the entry for the certificate subsystem from its LDAP-based database to remove the certificate subsystem from the security domain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify wherein the purging condition comprises at least one of: a termination request by the first NVMe entity, a lack of communication by the first NVMe entity for a period of time, or detecting by the CDC at least one of: a name server move, a replacement of the first NVMe entity on a physical switch port, a forced removal of the first NVMe entity from the name server database, a deletion of an NVMe entity reference from the zone database, or a deletion of the first NVMe entity based on a time-out condition as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide a way to process security domain requests when a user (system administrator) does not have the credentials to access the security domain manager and when the security domain manager is not available. (Lee, [0005]).
3. Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Koop in view of Mandrell further in view of Chen (US 20040024852 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the processor-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first NVMe entity is a host, the second NVMe entity is a subsystem, (Koop, Fig.11.)
Wu–Koop-Mandrell do not teach the name server database is maintained by the CDC, and the notification is at least one of an entry or a flag in the database.
Chen however in the same field of computer networking teaches the name server database is maintained by the CDC, and the notification is at least one of an entry or a flag in the database. (Chen, Claim.62. A Fibre Channel switch that comprises: a means for directing Fibre Channel frames between ports; and a name server configured to maintain a database of name server entries for node devices directly coupled to the switch, and configured to transmit registered state change notification messages to other switches after a node device state change is detected, wherein at least one of the state change messages includes at least one device entry with parameter values in a name server entry of a node device associated with the detected a state change.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify the name server database is maintained by the CDC, and the notification is at least one of an entry or a flag in the database as taught by Chen. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to increasing the scalability of Fibre Channel networks through the use of remote switch information caching in a Fibre Channel switch, through use of an improved name server structure, and through use of an extended registered state change notification (RSCN) packet payload (Chen, [0003]).
Regarding claim(s) 10, the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 9,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell do not teach the database is a name server database maintained in the CDC, and the notification is at least one of an entry or a flag in the database.
Chen however in the same field of computer networking teaches the database is a name server database maintained in the CDC, and the notification is at least one of an entry or a flag in the database. (Chen, Claim.62. A Fibre Channel switch that comprises: a means for directing Fibre Channel frames between ports; and a name server configured to maintain a database of name server entries for node devices directly coupled to the switch, and configured to transmit registered state change notification messages to other switches after a node device state change is detected, wherein at least one of the state change messages includes at least one device entry with parameter values in a name server entry of a node device associated with the detected a state change.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 2 applies here.
4. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Koop in view of Mandrell further in view of Lee (US 20110078772 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 15, the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 9,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell do not teach wherein the purging condition comprises at least one of: a termination request by the first NVMe entity, a lack of communication by the first NVMe entity for a period of time, or detecting by the CDC at least one of: a name server move, a replacement of the first NVMe entity on a physical switch port, a forced removal of the first NVMe entity from the name server database, a deletion of an NVMe entity reference from the zone database, or a deletion of the first NVMe entity based on a time out condition.
Lee however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the purging condition comprises at least one of: a termination request by the first NVMe entity, a lack of communication by the first NVMe entity for a period of time, or detecting by the CDC at least one of: a name server move, a replacement of the first NVMe entity on a physical switch port, a forced removal of the first NVMe entity from the name server database, a deletion of an NVMe entity reference from the zone database, or a deletion of the first NVMe entity based on a time out condition. (Lee, [0049], If the DM server determines that the security domain request is a removal request (block 521), the DM server receives information about the certificate subsystem being removed from the security domain. At block 523, the DM server deletes the entry for the certificate subsystem from its LDAP-based database to remove the certificate subsystem from the security domain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify wherein the purging condition comprises at least one of: a termination request by the first NVMe entity, a lack of communication by the first NVMe entity for a period of time, or detecting by the CDC at least one of: a name server move, a replacement of the first NVMe entity on a physical switch port, a forced removal of the first NVMe entity from the name server database, a deletion of an NVMe entity reference from the zone database, or a deletion of the first NVMe entity based on a time out condition as taught by Lee et al The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to providing the high availability of the security domain information.
5 Claim(s) 4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Wu in view of Koop in view of Mandrell further in view of Cordella (US 20060218532 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, the processor-implemented method of claim 1,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell do not further comprising in response to determining the connection loss, not communicating an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity to prevent soliciting the query.
Cordella however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising in response to determining the connection loss, not communicating an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity to prevent soliciting the query. (Cordella, [0048], The hardware components 110a-110c may signal their respective device drivers regarding any hardware changes or events. If there is a hardware state change such as, for example, a power failure, a new device coming on line, a particular device going off line, a connection failure, and the like, the occurrence of the state change is communicated to the appropriate device driver included in 106. The device driver 106 then sends notification of such events to the asynchronous event handler 104 which, in this example, executes in kernel space 108b. In one embodiment, the event dispatcher 102, the asynchronous event handler 104, and one or more associated device drivers 106 may be implemented using software that executes on each of the data storage systems.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify further comprising in response to determining the connection loss, not communicating an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity to prevent soliciting the query as taught by Cordella et al. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to have an efficient technique for reporting events and updates regarding one or more data storage systems in a timely manner. It may be desirable that the technique be scalable for use with a varying number of data storage devices and events occurring therein (Cordella, [0009]).
Regarding claim(s) 19, the system of claim 16,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell do not teach further comprising in response to determining the connection loss not communicating an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity to prevent soliciting a query from the second NVMe entity.
Cordella however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising in response to determining the connection loss not communicating an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity to prevent soliciting a query from the second NVMe entity. (Cordella, [0048], The hardware components 110a-110c may signal their respective device drivers regarding any hardware changes or events. If there is a hardware state change such as, for example, a power failure, a new device coming on line, a particular device going off line, a connection failure, and the like, the occurrence of the state change is communicated to the appropriate device driver included in 106. The device driver 106 then sends notification of such events to the asynchronous event handler 104 which, in this example, executes in kernel space 108b. In one embodiment, the event dispatcher 102, the asynchronous event handler 104, and one or more associated device drivers 106 may be implemented using software that executes on each of the data storage systems.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 4 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 20, the system of claim 16,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell teach further comprising in response to determining the purging condition, (Koop, [0153], If, on the other hand, the time-out period expires before communication with the node is re-established, the node connection is loss (purging condition), the node is removed from the database.)
Wu–Koop-Mandrell do not teach overriding the notification by sending out an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity.
Cordella however in the same field of computer networking teaches overriding the notification by sending out an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity. (Cordella, [0048], The hardware components 110a-110c may signal their respective device drivers regarding any hardware changes or events. If there is a hardware state change such as, for example, a power failure, a new device coming on line, a particular device going off line, a connection failure, and the like, the occurrence of the state change is communicated to the appropriate device driver included in 106. The device driver 106 then sends notification of such events to the asynchronous event handler 104 which, in this example, executes in kernel space 108b. In one embodiment, the event dispatcher 102, the asynchronous event handler 104, and one or more associated device drivers 106 may be implemented using software that executes on each of the data storage systems.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 4 applies here.
6 Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Koop in view of Mandrell further in view of Lee (US 20110078772 A1) and Cordella (US 20060218532 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the processor-implemented method of claim 1,
Wu–Koop-Mandrell teach do not teach further comprising in response to determining the purging condition, overriding the notification by sending out an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity.
Lee however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising in response to determining the purging condition, (Lee, [0049], If the DM server determines that the security domain request is a removal request (purging condition) (block 521), the DM server receives information about the certificate subsystem being removed from the security domain. At block 523, the DM server deletes the entry for the certificate subsystem from its LDAP-based database to remove the certificate subsystem from the security domain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify further comprising in response to determining the purging condition as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide a way to process security domain requests when a user (system administrator) does not have the credentials to access the security domain manager and when the security domain manager is not available. (Lee, [0005]).
Wu–Koop-Mandrell-Lee do not teach overriding the notification by sending out an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity.
Cordella however in the same field of computer networking teaches overriding the notification by sending out an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity. (Cordella, [0048], The hardware components 110a-110c may signal their respective device drivers regarding any hardware changes or events. If there is a hardware state change such as, for example, a power failure, a new device coming on line, a particular device going off line, a connection failure, and the like, the occurrence of the state change is communicated to the appropriate device driver included in 106. The device driver 106 then sends notification of such events to the asynchronous event handler 104 which, in this example, executes in kernel space 108b. In one embodiment, the event dispatcher 102, the asynchronous event handler 104, and one or more associated device drivers 106 may be implemented using software that executes on each of the data storage systems.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Wu to specify overriding the notification by sending out an asynchronous event notification (AEN) to the second NVMe entity as taught by Cordella. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to have an efficient technique for reporting events and updates regarding one or more data storage systems in a timely manner. It may be desirable that the technique be scalable for use with a varying number of data storage devices and events occurring therein (Cordella, [0009]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449