DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed January 7, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 20, 21, 23, and 25-27 are currently amended. Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 12, 16-17, and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18, and 20-28 are pending in this application.
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 .
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, 3, 11, 13, and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad et al. (US 20210385275 A1) (‘Saad’) in view of Bandic et al. (US 2014/0156713 A1) (‘Bandic’), and further in view of Abraham et al. (US 12,086,551 B2) (‘Abraham’).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, Saad teaches a system, method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, perform steps of a method for data recovery, the system comprising:
a cluster including a plurality of nodes, each node comprising a first processor unit (group of computing devices) (110 in Fig. 1, paragraphs 17 and 41); and
a remote storage configured to store a data snapshot of the plurality of nodes of the cluster (paragraphs 16 and 18), the remote storage comprising a second processor unit; and
a recovery manager (paragraphs 16 and 20-21) configured to:
record node and snapshot information (paragraphs 16 and 20-21);
the cluster being configured to:
first determine that a copy of a piece of data that is stored on a first node of the cluster (i.e. computing device B, C or D) needs to be stored on a second node (i.e. computing device A) of the cluster (paragraph 40);
second determine that the copy of the piece of data stored on the data snapshot in the remote storage is not the best storage source (paragraphs 43, 48, and 52);
in response to the second determination, cause copying of the piece of data directly from the first node to the second node (i.e. retrieving copy of file from peer device) (paragraphs 41, 52-54).
Although Saad teaches storing data on a first node and recording node and snapshot information in a recovery manager, Saad does not explicit teach a master node of the plurality of nodes configured to: store a record of distribution of primary copies and replicas of pieces of data on the plurality of nodes of the cluster, the record of distribution including that a piece of data is stored on a first node of the cluster.
Bandic teaches a master node of the plurality of nodes configured to: store a record of distribution of primary copies and replicas of pieces of data on the plurality of nodes of the cluster, the record of distribution including that a piece of data is stored on a first node of the cluster (Master node 340 stores information that identifies locations within file system 302 where copies of a data unit are stored) (paragraphs 32 and 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the cluster of Saad to have a master node as taught by Bandic to enable a node to control requests and identify computing nodes in the cluster storing requested data (Bandic, paragraph 37). Further, Saad already teaches a recovery manager that acts similar to a master node, and thus the modification would only entail incorporating the recovery manager into the cluster as the master node to achieve control/management over nodes and other system components.
Further regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, although Saad teaches determining the best source (peer device or cloud storage) from which to recover a piece of data, Saad does not explicitly teach determining, using a semantic comparison, that the piece of data stored on the first node differs from the copy of the piece of data stored in another storage, the difference being a semantic difference.
Abraham teaches determining, using a semantic comparison, that the piece of data stored on the first node differs from the copy of the piece of data stored in another storage, the difference being a semantic difference (col. 7 lines 46-52; col. 9 lines 25-29; col. 10 lines 13-32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified Saad to perform semantic difference determination, as taught by Abraham, to enable a much more robust characterization of the differences between data than prior diffing methods beyond simply identifying symbolic differences. Furthermore, it would enable the ability to both quantitatively note the amount or degree of difference between instances and qualitatively characterize the manner of difference in a descriptive way (Abraham, col. 1 lines 42-48). Further, assessing semantic differences ensures that the best copy of the data is being recovered, thus supporting the goals of Saad to intelligently distribute retrieval of recovery data amongst peer-based and cloud-based storage sources (Saad, paragraph 57).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham teaches wherein the first node is designated to store a primary copy of the piece of data on the cluster (Saad, paragraph 17).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad et al. (US 20210385275 A1) (‘Saad’) in view of Bandic and Abraham, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0235978 A1) (‘Wu’).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham teaches first and second nodes and a plurality of cloud storage tiers (Saad, paragraph 19).
Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham does not explicitly teach wherein the first node and the second node belong to a same tier of a plurality of tiers.
Wu teaches wherein the first node and the second node belong to a same tier of a plurality of tiers (Fig. 1, paragraphs 17-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the nodes of Saad to be stored in the same tier as taught by Wu to enable new and improved heterogeneous data protection architectures, systems and methods for supporting multiple tiers of data types having different availability, retention and protection requirements (Wu, paragraph 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because Saad already teaches tiering and thus it would only entail applying tiering to nodes as well as cloud storage.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Saad in view of Bandic, Abraham and Wu teaches wherein, after downloading the copy of the piece of data to the second node, the cluster designates the copy of the piece of data as a replica of the piece of data on the cluster (Saad, paragraphs 17 and 21).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham teaches first and second nodes and a plurality of cloud storage tiers (Saad, paragraph 19).
Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham does not explicitly teach wherein the first node and the second node belong to different tiers of a plurality of tiers.
Wu teaches wherein the first node and the second node belong to different tiers of a plurality of tiers (Fig. 1, paragraphs 17-18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the nodes of Saad to be stored in different tiers as taught by Wu to enable new and improved heterogeneous data protection architectures, systems and methods for supporting multiple tiers of data types having different availability, retention and protection requirements (Wu, paragraph 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because Saad already teaches tiering and thus it would only entail applying tiering to nodes as well as cloud storage.
With respect to claim 10, Saad in view of Bandic, Abraham and Wu wherein after downloading the copy of the piece of data, the cluster designates the copy of the piece of data as a primary copy of the piece of data in the cluster (Saad, paragraphs 17 and 21).
Claims 21, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad et al. (US 20210385275 A1) (‘Saad’) in view of Bandic and Abraham, and further in view of VanBenschoten et al. (US 2023/0021150 A1) (hereinafter ‘Van’).
With respect to claims 21 and 25, Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham teaches determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the
cluster.
Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham does not explicitly teach identifying the second node as a newly added node to the cluster and responsive to identifying the second node as the newly added node to the cluster, determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the cluster.
Van teaches identifying the second node as a newly added node to the cluster and responsive to identifying the second node as the newly added node to the cluster, determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the cluster (Based on nodes being added to the cluster, the added node(s) may communicate identifying information to the existing nodes of the cluster. The identifying information may include an indication that the added node(s) have available storage capacity. The cluster may rebalance replicas stored by the existing nodes to the added node(s)) (paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have further modified Saad to determine to copy data responsive to a newly added node as taught by Van to enable rebalancing of nodes based on changes members of a cluster, thereby enabling optimal survivability and performance (Van, paragraph 101).
With respect to claims 23 and 27, Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham teaches determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the cluster.
Saad in view of Bandic and Abraham does not explicitly teach identifying a newly removed third node from the cluster stored a copy of the piece of data and responsive to identifying that the newly removed third node from the cluster stored the copy of the piece of data, determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the cluster.
Van teaches identifying a newly removed third node from the cluster stored a copy of the piece of data and responsive to identifying that the newly removed third node from the cluster stored the copy of the piece of data, determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the cluster (Based on nodes being removed from the cluster (e.g., due to a lack of a response to the Raft group), nodes of the cluster may rebalance data stored by the removed node(s) to the remaining nodes of the cluster) (paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have further modified Saad to determine to copy data responsive to a removed node as taught by Van to enable rebalancing of nodes based on changes members of a cluster, thereby enabling optimal survivability and performance (Van, paragraph 101).
Claims 22, 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad et al. (US 20210385275 A1) (‘Saad’) in view of Bandic, Abraham, VanBenschoten, as applied to claims 21, 23, 25, and 27 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0235978 A1) (‘Wu’).
With respect to claims 22 and 26, Saad in view of Bandic, Abraham and Van teaches first and second nodes and a plurality of cloud storage tiers (Saad, paragraph 19) and determining that newly added nodes belong to a same Raft group and storage layer, and responsive to determining that the newly added node belongs to the same group/storage layer, determining that the copy of the piece of data needs to be stored on the second node of the cluster (Van, paragraphs 101-103).
Saad in view of Bandic, Abraham and Van does not explicitly teach wherein the newly added node belongs to a same tier of a plurality of tiers in the cluster as the first node. (Although a storage layer may be interpreted as a tier, the examiner introduces another reference to explicitly teach a tier.)
Wu teaches wherein newly added node belongs to a same tier of a plurality of tiers in the cluster as the first node (Fig. 1, paragraphs 17-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the nodes of Saad to be stored in the same tier as taught by Wu to enable new and improved heterogeneous data protection architectures, systems and methods for supporting multiple tiers of data types having different availability, retention and protection requirements (Wu, paragraph 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because Saad already teaches tiering and thus it would only entail applying tiering to nodes as well as cloud storage.
With respect to claims 24 and 28, Saad in view of Bandic, Abraham and Van teaches first and second nodes and a plurality of cloud storage tiers (Saad, paragraph 19) and removing nodes (Van, paragraph 101).
Saad in view of Bandic, Abraham and Van does not explicitly teach wherein the newly removed third node belonged to a same tier of a plurality of tiers in the cluster as the second node.
Wu teaches wherein the newly removed third node belonged to a same tier of a plurality of tiers in the cluster as the second node (Fig. 1, paragraphs 17-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified the nodes of Saad to be stored in the same tier as taught by Wu to enable new and improved heterogeneous data protection architectures, systems and methods for supporting multiple tiers of data types having different availability, retention and protection requirements (Wu, paragraph 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because Saad already teaches tiering and thus it would only entail applying tiering to nodes as well as cloud storage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18, and 20-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156