DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 03/19/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/BORIS GORNEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haider et al. (US Pub. No. 20150331752) and Li et al. (US Pub. No. 20210263795) and Wang et al. (US Patent No. 9235590) in further view of Bolkhovitin et al. (US Pub. No. 20180341606).
With respect to claim 1, Haider et al. teaches a computer-implemented method when executed by data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
storing, by the data processing hardware, a first plurality of files at a first datacenter (Paragraph 15 discloses Cloud data centers currently store data on the cloud servers with redundant files also stored on the cloud servers);
storing, by the data processing hardware, a second plurality of files at a second datacenter (Paragraph 15 discloses Cloud data centers currently store data on the cloud servers with redundant files also stored on the cloud servers);
generating, by the data processing hardware, a parity file comprising parity calculations of the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files (Paragraph 13 discloses Chunk formation and calculation of parity of the file 226 starts at the chunk manager);
storing, by the data processing hardware, the parity file at a third datacenter (Paragraph 13 discloses stores the chunk and parity of the file on the user equipment's local storage 230 along with the log 236 and other chunks of the file at the cloud along with the log 238). Haider et al. does not disclose receiving a request to delete a first file of the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter.
However, Li et al. teaches receiving, by the data processing hardware, a request to delete a first file of the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter (Paragraph 35 discloses compaction techniques can also be used when there is no new incoming data. For example, files may be deleted instead of being updated);
in response to the request to delete the first file, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the parity file stored at the third datacenter (Paragraph 30 discloses Compaction can be triggered, when the space occupied by the holes exceeds a certain threshold. During compaction, the system reads out the remaining valid user data portions D3 and D4 from the corresponding storage nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. with Li et al. to include receiving a request to delete a first file of the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter. This would have ensured the efficient compaction of data by reducing the amount of data that needed compaction at a time.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. does not disclose after compacting the parity file, determining, by the data processing hardware, whether a data compaction cost threshold is satisfied.
However, Wang et al. discloses after compacting the parity file, determining, by the data processing hardware, whether a data compaction cost threshold is satisfied (Column 12 Lines 34-56 discloses determine if the compression cost is less than a predetermined threshold. If the compression cost is greater than the threshold, compression may be performed by the BLCM 302 of the particular data block under consideration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. with Wang et al. to include after compacting the parity file, determining, by the data processing hardware, whether a data compaction cost threshold is satisfied. This would have ensured the efficient compaction of data by identifying patterns of data usage and the data that needed compaction.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. does not disclose responsive to determining that the data compaction cost threshold is satisfied, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter independently of compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter.
However, Bolkhovitin et al. discloses responsive to determining that the data compaction cost threshold is satisfied, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter independently of compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter (Paragraph 73 discloses the data management function is a data compaction function, and initiating performance of the data management functions comprises: identifying a set of memory blocks to compact; for each respective memory block in the identified set of memory blocks: determining a first storage device where the data for the respective memory block is located and a second storage device where parity data for the respective memory block is located; sending to the first storage device a block compaction request and to the second storage device a parity rebuild command to rebuild parity; and receiving one or more finish notifications from the first storage device and the second storage device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. and Wang et al. with Bolkhovitin et al. to include responsive to determining that the data compaction cost threshold is satisfied, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter independently of compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter. This would have ensured the efficient compaction of data by identifying patterns of data usage and the data that needed compaction.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter comprises removing a reference to the first file (Paragraph 32 discloses After compaction, expired user data D1 and D2, and old parity data P1 and P2 can be collected as invalid data. More particularly, the file system can remove mappings to these invalid data, and their storage location can be subject to garbage collection by the physical drives). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Haider et al. reference and the Li et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 3.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 4, Haider et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first datacenter, the second datacenter, and the third datacenter are each different datacenters (Paragraph 21 discloses Once the parts are successfully created and stored at the user equipment, they are distributed to participating devices at the user end and the cloud data center).
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4. With respect to claim 5, Haider et al. teaches the method of claim 4, wherein:
the first datacenter is located at a first geographical region, the second datacenter is located at a second geographical region (Paragraph 6 discloses three replicas of data are made and distributed geographically across data centers); and
the third datacenter is located at a third geographical region (Paragraph 6 discloses three replicas of data are made and distributed geographically across data centers).
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 8, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, prior to compacting the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter:
receiving a second request to delete a second file of the second plurality of files stored at the second datacenter (Paragraph 35 discloses compaction techniques can also be used when there is no new incoming data. For example, files may be deleted instead of being updated); and
in response to the second request to delete the second file, re-compacting the compacted parity file stored at the third datacenter (Paragraph 30 discloses During compaction, the system reads out the remaining valid user data portions D3 and D4 from the corresponding storage nodes (e.g., storage nodes 306 and 308). In order to form a new erasure-coding codeword 322, the system can use portions of incoming client data 320 to fill the empty slots in erasure-coding codeword 322. The compute node can perform an erasure-coding encoding operation to generate new parity data P1_N and P2_N. After encoding, erasure-coding codeword 322 can include new data portions D1_N and D2_N, unchanged data portions D3 and D4, and new parity portions P1_N and P2_N). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Haider et al. reference and the Li et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 8.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 9, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter comprises:
generating a new parity file using each remaining file of the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files (Paragraph 30 discloses generate new parity data P1_N and P2_N); and
deleting the parity file (Paragraph 29 discloses D1 and D2 contain expired data (e.g., data that has been updated or deleted), whereas D3 and D4 contain valid user data).
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 10, Li. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data compaction cost threshold is based on an amount of data requested to be deleted from the first plurality of files (Paragraph 30 discloses files (e.g., user data D1 and D2) stored in storage system 300 can be updated, creating holes in the data chunks. Compaction can be triggered, when the space occupied by the holes exceeds a certain threshold). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Haider et al. reference and the Li et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, Haider et al. teaches a system comprising:
data processing hardware (See Fig. 1); and
memory hardware (See Fig. 1) in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
store a first plurality of files at a first datacenter (Paragraph 15 discloses Cloud data centers currently store data on the cloud servers with redundant files also stored on the cloud servers);
store a second plurality of files at a second datacenter (Paragraph 15 discloses Cloud data centers currently store data on the cloud servers with redundant files also stored on the cloud servers);
generate a parity file comprising parity calculations of the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files (Paragraph 13 discloses Chunk formation and calculation of parity of the file 226 starts at the chunk manager);
store the parity file at a third datacenter (Paragraph 13 discloses stores the chunk and parity of the file on the user equipment's local storage 230 along with the log 236 and other chunks of the file at the cloud along with the log 238). Haider et al. does not disclose receiving a request to delete a first file of the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter.
However, Li et al. teaches receiving, by the data processing hardware, a request to delete a first file of the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter (Paragraph 35 discloses compaction techniques can also be used when there is no new incoming data. For example, files may be deleted instead of being updated);
in response to the request to delete the first file, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the parity file stored at the third datacenter (Paragraph 30 discloses Compaction can be triggered, when the space occupied by the holes exceeds a certain threshold. During compaction, the system reads out the remaining valid user data portions D3 and D4 from the corresponding storage nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. with Li et al. to include receiving a request to delete a first file of the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter. This would have ensured the efficient compaction of data by reducing the amount of data that needed compaction at a time.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. does not disclose after compacting the parity file, determining, by the data processing hardware, whether a data compaction cost threshold is satisfied.
However, Wang et al. discloses after compacting the parity file, determining, by the data processing hardware, whether a data compaction cost threshold is satisfied (Column 12 Lines 34-56 discloses determine if the compression cost is less than a predetermined threshold. If the compression cost is greater than the threshold, compression may be performed by the BLCM 302 of the particular data block under consideration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. with Wang et al. to include after compacting the parity file, determining, by the data processing hardware, whether a data compaction cost threshold is satisfied. This would have ensured the efficient compaction of data by identifying patterns of data usage and the data that needed compaction.
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. does not disclose responsive to determining that the data compaction cost threshold is satisfied, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter independently of compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter.
However, Bolkhovitin et al. discloses responsive to determining that the data compaction cost threshold is satisfied, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter independently of compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter (Paragraph 73 discloses the data management function is a data compaction function, and initiating performance of the data management functions comprises: identifying a set of memory blocks to compact; for each respective memory block in the identified set of memory blocks: determining a first storage device where the data for the respective memory block is located and a second storage device where parity data for the respective memory block is located; sending to the first storage device a block compaction request and to the second storage device a parity rebuild command to rebuild parity; and receiving one or more finish notifications from the first storage device and the second storage device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. and Wang et al. with Bolkhovitin et al. to include responsive to determining that the data compaction cost threshold is satisfied, compacting, by the data processing hardware, the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter independently of compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter. This would have ensured the efficient compaction of data by identifying patterns of data usage and the data that needed compaction.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 10, because claim 20 is substantially equivalent to claim 10.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haider et al. (US Pub. No. 20150331752) and Li et al. (US Pub. No. 20210263795) and Wang et al. (US Patent No. 9235590) and Bolkhovitin et al. (US Pub. No. 20180341606) in further view of Klein et al. (US Pub. No. 20220027233).
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Haider et al. as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. does not disclose wherein generating the parity file comprises determining an exclusive OR between the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files.
However, Klein et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the parity file comprises determining an exclusive OR between the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files (Paragraph 51 discloses performs an XOR operation between new data stored in the drive buffer (new data) 202 and the old data stored in the drive buffer (old data) 204 to determine an XOR result, and stores the XOR result in the drive buffer (XOR result)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. with Klein et al. to include wherein generating the parity file comprises determining an exclusive OR between the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files. This would have ensured parity protection to facilitate recovery.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haider et al. (US Pub. No. 20150331752) and Li et al. (US Pub. No. 20210263795) and Wang et al. (US Patent No. 9235590) and Bolkhovitin et al. (US Pub. No. 20180341606) in further view of KARR et al. (US Pub. No. 20210173945).
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4. With respect to claim 6, Haider et al. as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. does not discloses wherein compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter comprises determining that a parity compaction cost threshold is satisfied.
However, KARR et al. discloses teaches the method of claim 4, wherein compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter comprises determining that a parity compaction cost threshold is satisfied (Paragraph 160 discloses determines that the utilization of the local storage that is collectively provided by the cloud computing instances 340a, 340b, 340n has reached a predetermined utilization threshold (e.g., 95%) and Paragraph 323 discloses performing 728 data reduction on the unencrypted data may include a variety of data reduction techniques. For example, data compression and/or data compaction may be carried out).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. with KARR et al. to include wherein compacting the parity file stored at the third datacenter comprises determining that a parity compaction cost threshold is satisfied. This would have ensured parity protection to facilitate data reduction.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haider et al. (US Pub. No. 20150331752) and Li et al. (US Pub. No. 20210263795) and Wang et al. (US Patent No. 9235590) and Bolkhovitin et al. (US Pub. No. 20180341606) in further view of MEISTER et al. (US Pub. No. 20180356989).
The Haider et al. reference as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 7, Haider et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, prior to compacting the first plurality of files stored at the first datacenter:
determining that a second file of the first plurality of files is inaccessible (Paragraph 22 discloses When a data center server that contains part of the file fails, the recovery manager performs a local reconstruction of data. In local reconstruction only the file parts residing on the user equipment are used for reconstruction); and
recovering the second file using the compacted parity file and the second plurality of files (Paragraph 22 discloses When a data center server that contains part of the file fails, the recovery manager performs a local reconstruction of data. In local reconstruction only the file parts residing on the user equipment are used for reconstruction). Haider et al. as modified by Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. does not disclose determining that a second file of the first plurality of files is inaccessible.
However, MEISTER et al. discloses determining that a second file of the first plurality of files is inaccessible (Paragraph 213 discloses a data file missing or becoming inaccessible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haider et al. and Li et al. and Wang et al. and Bolkhovitin et al. with MEISTER et al. to include determining that a second file of the first plurality of files is inaccessible. This would have facilitated data recovery.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-Pub. No. 20220113884 is directed to Storage System And Method For Detecting And Utilizing Wasted Space Using A File System: [0030] Back end module 110 includes an error correction code (ECC) engine 124 that encodes the data bytes received from the host, and decodes and error corrects the data bytes read from the non-volatile memory. A command sequencer 126 generates command sequences, such as program and erase command sequences, to be transmitted to non-volatile memory die 104. A RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Drives) module 128 manages generation of RAID parity and recovery of failed data. The RAID parity may be used as an additional level of integrity protection for the data being written into the memory device 104. In some cases, the RAID module 128 may be a part of the ECC engine 124. A memory interface 130 provides the command sequences to non-volatile memory die 104 and receives status information from non-volatile memory die 104. In one embodiment, memory interface 130 may be a double data rate (DDR) interface, such as a Toggle Mode 200, 400, or 800 interface. A flash control layer 132 controls the overall operation of back end module 110.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights