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 .
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2020/0042217) and further in view of Fried et al. (US 9,183,148).
Consider claim 1, Roberts et al. discloses a system, comprising: a system, comprising: a plurality of clusters, each cluster comprising two or more nodes and a data storage system; the data storage system comprising two or more storage arrays; and each storage array comprising two or more storage devices, wherein each node includes a respective cache that is synchronized with one or more other respective caches each in one or more other nodes, the synchronizing comprising:(i) writing data to a first one of the respective caches, and one or more of the other respective caches in one or more other nodes, (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses storage locations (one of the clusters) with multiple nodes and storage in the form of arrays. Roberts et al. discloses the use of RAID (mirroring and striping) which is considered synchronizing across the nodes. In paragraph [0036] Roberts et al. discloses that the media devices in the storage devices can include primary and secondary storage and perform caching for data to be stored in the secondary storage. Therefore the mirroring RAID operation is causing data to be written to the caches in response to the RAID operation.).
As for the limitation: “and (ii) in response to the data being written from the first one of the respective caches to a first one of the storage devices, the data is removed from the one or more of the other respective caches in the one or more other nodes without the one or more of the other respective caches writing the data to a corresponding one of the storage devices”. Roberts et al. teaches using RAID mirroring to write the data to cache and then to secondary memory, but Roberts et al. does not go into specific detail as to how data is removed/flushed/moved out from cache. However, Fried et al. also discloses a cluster based system with nodes and storage where multiple copies of the same data can be stored in caches of different nodes. When a node that has a valid modified copy is flushed back to storage, a cluster event notification is sent out and in response, the other nodes delete/invalidate their copies instead of writing them back (Fried et al.: abstract, Col. 12 lines 30-39 and Col. 16 lines 20-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roberts et al., to include the coherency/synchronization process of Fried et al. because doing so provides an efficient cache consistency process that ensures the veracity of the shared resources (Fried et al.: Col. 1 lines 6-9 and lines 42-44).
Consider claim 2, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a first one of the clusters and a second one of the clusters are physically distant from one another (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses that the communications can be LAN, WAN, internet etc.).
Consider claim 3, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each node is configured for access to all data stored at a corresponding one of the clusters (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses that data is read and written to storage.).
Consider claim 4, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 3, wherein each node comprises metadata to enable access to data stored at a corresponding one of the clusters (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses the storing of metadata.).
Consider claim 5, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 4, wherein metadata is synchronized between nodes in a one of the clusters (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses the use of RAID (mirroring and striping)).
Consider claim 6, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein each cluster comprises a node manager configured to synchronize the metadata between the two or more nodes (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses the use of RAID (mirroring and striping)).
Consider claim 7, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each cluster comprises a load balancing node configured to distribute requests among the two or more nodes of the each of the clusters (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses the use of load balancing.).
Consider claim 8, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each node is configured to act as a storage controller by interfacing with the data storage system (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], each storage location has controllers.).
Consider claim 9, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein each node is configured to run a driver to interface directly with each of the two or more storage arrays in the corresponding one of the clusters (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], protocol drivers are disclosed, for example.).
Consider claim 10, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more storage devices are selected from the group consisting of: a hard disk drive; a solid state drive; and a flash drive (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses all these types of storage.).
Consider claim 11, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the two or more storage devices each have a first size of storage (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], one storage will have the same size at itself.).
Consider claim 12, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the storage arrays comprises a virtual storage array, and the two or more storage devices are accessible over a network (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053], [0058] and [0096], Roberts et al. discloses storage virtualization using a controller.).
Consider claim 13, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the two or more storage devices comprises at least two types of storage devices (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses multiple types of storage devices.).
Consider claim 14, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a first one of the storage arrays comprises a first type of the storage devices, and a second one of the storage arrays comprises a second type of the storage devices (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses multiple types of storage devices.).
Consider claim 15, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the storage devices are tiered (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses that storage can be used as primary and secondary or as a cache.).
Consider claim 16, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each node in a one of the clusters is configured to interact with each storage array (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], the components are configured to interact with each other.).
Consider claim 17, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is an on-premises system configured to be collocated with one or more applications of a user (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses that the communications can be LAN, WAN, internet etc. and the use of applications.).
Consider claim 18, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a cloud system configured to be virtualized (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0010], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053], [0058] and [0096], Roberts et al. discloses storage virtualization using a controller and the use of the cloud.).
Consider claim 19, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a multi-site system configured to be distributed over a plurality of physical locations interconnected with a network (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses that the communications can be LAN, WAN, internet etc.).
Consider claim 20, Roberts et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a multi-cloud system configured to operate over a plurality of cloud services (Fig. 1-4, [0002], [0003], [0024]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0053] and [0058], Roberts et al. discloses the use of applications including cloud computing.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that Claim 1 is a “co-cached identical data” scenario and that Fried is not. The claim language in question requires the writing data to be written to a first and one or more other caches. In Fried, data can be written to multiple caches, then one cache modifies that data and the other copies are deleted. Therefore, Fried does teach multiple caches having the same data written to them, until one cached version is modified. Further, the argument that Fried’s refresh is optional and that stale copies are tolerated is not persuasive because it is merely an option, the data is disclosed to be refreshed and the stale copies are disclosed to be immediately deleted, having other options does not remove this disclosure from Fried. Further, the phrase “in response to” does not require an immediate removal, just that the removal is at least partly because the data is being written from a cache to a storage device.
The applicant next argues that Fried’s delete/invalidate is directed to a change-log entry and is not a removal of cached data for the other nodes. However, the change-log entry is used to invalidate stale entries so that they are not used. The deletion/invalidation of a log entry for the cached data is a removal of the cached data as valid data and therefore the data is considered effectively removed from consideration in those caches, due the data being stale, as required by the claim language.
The applicant further argues that Fried’s delete local cache copy operation is triggered by staleness, not by the first cache’s write-back event. However, the examiner considers the deletion/invalidation of the stale data to be in response to the processes, in Fried, of determining a particular cache has the latest version, then that version is flushed to a shared storage system, then a cluster event notification is sent to the other nodes, then those other nodes delete their version of the data. Therefore, the deleting in Fried is based, at least in part, on the caches flush operation as required by the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached on (571)272-4204. 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.
/MICHAEL ALSIP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136
Prosecution Insights