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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed 06 December 2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEELA (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2022/0229734) in view of BRUNING (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2011/0099148) and SALVARAJAN (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2021/0064238).
1. SEELA discloses A computer-implemented method for a mirror volume comparison, the computer-implemented method comprising: executing asynchronous remote mirroring between a primary site and a secondary site (see [0043]: asynchronous remote replication; [0041]: remote replication mirrors data from a source data storage system to a remote data storage system); making a first flash copy of first data at the primary site (see [0073]: asynchronous remote replication may be implemented using a snapshot based solution – a snapshot corresponds to the claimed flash copy); executing asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to a replica at the secondary site (see [0073]: the snapshot is used to synchronize content between the source LUN and the target LUN); making a second flash copy of second data at the secondary site (see BRUNING below); and performing an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy to verify an accuracy of the asynchronous remote mirroring (see SALVARAJAN below).
BRUNING discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: making a second flash copy of second data at the secondary site (see [0018]: snapshot of the source storage system is taken and a snapshot of the remote storage system is taken). In order to verify a mirror copy of data, BRUNING takes a snapshot of the source storage system and calculates a signature of the snapshot. Then a snapshot is taken of the remote storage system and another signature is calculated (see [0018]). A comparison of the snapshots creates a reliable mechanism to verify that the remote mirror is identical to the source (see [0010]). The system disclosed by BRUNING also implements asynchronous mirroring, therefore the verification mechanism disclosed by BRUNING is compatible with the system disclosed by SEELA.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to make a second flash copy at the secondary site, as disclosed by BRUNING. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to implement a reliable mechanism to verify the remote mirror is identical to the source, as taught by BRUNING. SEELA and BRUNING are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication systems.
SALVARAJAN discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: performing an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy to verify an accuracy of the asynchronous remote mirroring (see [0022]: data blocks of the backup copy are compared with a snapshot). SALVARAJAN performs a comparison between the actual backup copy blocks and a snapshot (see [0022]). This allows the system to verify the integrity of the actual blocks that store data in a backup copy (see [0029]). Each block of the backup copy is compared with a block of the snapshot using a hash function (see [0030]). A user can request verification (see [0058]), this would be equivalent to the claimed “on-demand compare”. While the combination of SEELA and BRUNING verify that a snapshot at the remote site and a snapshot at the source site are identical, the combination doesn’t take the last step to ensure the actual data blocks at the remote site are identical. By incorporating the teachings of SALVARAJAN, the system can ensure the actual data blocks of the remote storage system are identical to the snapshot.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to perform an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy, as disclosed by SALVARAJAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to validate the integrity of the actual data blocks in the backup copy, as taught by SALVARAJAN. SEELA and SALVARAJAN are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to data replication.
2. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: stopping the first data from being updated upon the making of the first flash copy; and resuming updates to the first data following the making of the second flash copy of the second data (see BRUNING [0023]: changes to data are quiesced while the snapshots are taken).
4. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site is non-instantaneous (see SEELA [0043]: with asynchronous replication there is a delay between the update on the source and the update on the target, additionally, there may be a longer distance between the source and the target which also introduces a delay, the presence of a delay in SEELA results in a replica that is non-instantaneous).
5. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the second flash copy is an in-band flash copy (see BRUNING [0023]: the snapshots are synchronized and taken at the same time, this is considered in-band; applicants spec mentions an in-band copy as being made at a particular point in time, see [0045]).
7. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the on-demand compare is a static compare of the replica with the second flash copy (see SALVARAJAN [0022], [0028]-[0029]: blocks of the backup are compared with blocks from the snapshot, this is a repeatable comparison operation that occurs and is therefore considered a static compare; applicant provide minimal detail regarding what is considered a static compare, applicant mentions the on-demand compare can be static and repeatable, see spec [0048]; based on this, the repeatable compare operation disclosed by SALVARAJAN is considered an on-demand static compare).
8. SEELA discloses A computer program product for a mirror volume comparison, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having computer readable program code collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (see [0174]: code stored on one or more different forms of computer-readable media), the computer readable program code being executed by a processor of a computer system (see [0174]: code may be executed by one or more processors) to cause the computer system to perform a method comprising: executing asynchronous remote mirroring between a primary site and a secondary site (see [0043]: asynchronous remote replication; [0041]: remote replication mirrors data from a source data storage system to a remote data storage system); making a first flash copy of first data at the primary site (see [0073]: asynchronous remote replication may be implemented using a snapshot based solution – a snapshot corresponds to the claimed flash copy); executing asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to a replica at the secondary site (see [0073]: the snapshot is used to synchronize content between the source LUN and the target LUN); making a second flash copy of second data at the secondary site (see BRUNING below); and performing an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy to verify an accuracy of the asynchronous remote mirroring (see SALVARAJAN below).
BRUNING discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: making a second flash copy of second data at the secondary site (see [0018]: snapshot of the source storage system is taken and a snapshot of the remote storage system is taken). In order to verify a mirror copy of data, BRUNING takes a snapshot of the source storage system and calculates a signature of the snapshot. Then a snapshot is taken of the remote storage system and another signature is calculated (see [0018]). A comparison of the snapshots creates a reliable mechanism to verify that the remote mirror is identical to the source (see [0010]). The system disclosed by BRUNING also implements asynchronous mirroring, therefore the verification mechanism disclosed by BRUNING is compatible with the system disclosed by SEELA.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to make a second flash copy at the secondary site, as disclosed by BRUNING. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to implement a reliable mechanism to verify the remote mirror is identical to the source, as taught by BRUNING. SEELA and BRUNING are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication systems.
SALVARAJAN discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: performing an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy to verify an accuracy of the asynchronous remote mirroring (see [0022]: data blocks of the backup copy are compared with a snapshot). SALVARAJAN performs a comparison between the actual backup copy blocks and a snapshot (see [0022]). This allows the system to verify the integrity of the actual blocks that store data in a backup copy (see [0029]). Each block of the backup copy is compared with a block of the snapshot using a hash function (see [0030]). A user can request verification (see [0058]), this would be equivalent to the claimed “on-demand compare”. While the combination of SEELA and BRUNING verify that a snapshot at the remote site and a snapshot at the source site are identical, the combination doesn’t take the last step to ensure the actual data blocks at the remote site are identical. By incorporating the teachings of SALVARAJAN, the system can ensure the actual data blocks of the remote storage system are identical to the snapshot.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to perform an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy, as disclosed by SALVARAJAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to validate the integrity of the actual data blocks in the backup copy, as taught by SALVARAJAN. SEELA and SALVARAJAN are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to data replication.
9. The computer program product according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: stopping the first data from being updated upon the making of the first flash copy; and resuming updates to the first data following the making of the second flash copy of the second data (see BRUNING [0023]: changes to data are quiesced while the snapshots are taken).
11. The computer program product according to claim 8, wherein the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site is non-instantaneous (see SEELA [0043]: with asynchronous replication there is a delay between the update on the source and the update on the target, additionally, there may be a longer distance between the source and the target which also introduces a delay, the presence of a delay in SEELA results in a replica that is non-instantaneous).
12. The computer program product according to claim 8, wherein the second flash copy is an in-band flash copy (see BRUNING [0023]: the snapshots are synchronized and taken at the same time, this is considered in-band; applicants spec mentions an in-band copy as being made at a particular point in time, see [0045]).
14. The computer program product according to claim 8, wherein the on-demand compare is a static compare of the replica with the second flash copy (see SALVARAJAN [0022], [0028]-[0029]: blocks of the backup are compared with blocks from the snapshot, this is a repeatable comparison operation that occurs and is therefore considered a static compare; applicant provide minimal detail regarding what is considered a static compare, applicant mentions the on-demand compare can be static and repeatable, see spec [0048]; based on this, the repeatable compare operation disclosed by SALVARAJAN is considered an on-demand static compare).
15. SEELA discloses A computing system comprising: a processor (see [0174]: code executed by one or more processors; [0033]; data storage array that includes multiple storage processors); a memory coupled to the processor (see [0174]: one or more computer readable media include volatile and non-volatile memory; [0033]: each processor has their own memory); and one or more computer readable storage media coupled to the processor (see [0174]: one or more different forms of computer-readable media), the one or more computer readable storage media collectively containing instructions that are executed by the processor via the memory to implement a method (see [0174]: code stored on the computer readable media is executed by one or more processors) comprising: executing asynchronous remote mirroring between a primary site and a secondary site (see [0043]: asynchronous remote replication; [0041]: remote replication mirrors data from a source data storage system to a remote data storage system); making a first flash copy of first data at the primary site (see [0073]: asynchronous remote replication may be implemented using a snapshot based solution – a snapshot corresponds to the claimed flash copy); executing asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to a replica at the secondary site (see [0073]: the snapshot is used to synchronize content between the source LUN and the target LUN); making a second flash copy of second data at the secondary site (see BRUNING below); and performing an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy to verify an accuracy of the asynchronous remote mirroring (see SALVARAJAN below).
BRUNING discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: making a second flash copy of second data at the secondary site (see [0018]: snapshot of the source storage system is taken and a snapshot of the remote storage system is taken). In order to verify a mirror copy of data, BRUNING takes a snapshot of the source storage system and calculates a signature of the snapshot. Then a snapshot is taken of the remote storage system and another signature is calculated (see [0018]). A comparison of the snapshots creates a reliable mechanism to verify that the remote mirror is identical to the source (see [0010]). The system disclosed by BRUNING also implements asynchronous mirroring, therefore the verification mechanism disclosed by BRUNING is compatible with the system disclosed by SEELA.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to make a second flash copy at the secondary site, as disclosed by BRUNING. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to implement a reliable mechanism to verify the remote mirror is identical to the source, as taught by BRUNING. SEELA and BRUNING are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication systems.
SALVARAJAN discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: performing an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy to verify an accuracy of the asynchronous remote mirroring (see [0022]: data blocks of the backup copy are compared with a snapshot). SALVARAJAN performs a comparison between the actual backup copy blocks and a snapshot (see [0022]). This allows the system to verify the integrity of the actual blocks that store data in a backup copy (see [0029]). Each block of the backup copy is compared with a block of the snapshot using a hash function (see [0030]). A user can request verification (see [0058]), this would be equivalent to the claimed “on-demand compare”. While the combination of SEELA and BRUNING verify that a snapshot at the remote site and a snapshot at the source site are identical, the combination doesn’t take the last step to ensure the actual data blocks at the remote site are identical. By incorporating the teachings of SALVARAJAN, the system can ensure the actual data blocks of the remote storage system are identical to the snapshot.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to perform an on-demand compare of the replica with the second flash copy, as disclosed by SALVARAJAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to validate the integrity of the actual data blocks in the backup copy, as taught by SALVARAJAN. SEELA and SALVARAJAN are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to data replication.
16. The computing system according to claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: stopping the first data from being updated upon the making of the first flash copy; and resuming updates to the first data following the making of the second flash copy of the second data (see BRUNING [0023]: changes to data are quiesced while the snapshots are taken).
18. The computing system according to claim 15, wherein the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site is non-instantaneous (see SEELA [0043]: with asynchronous replication there is a delay between the update on the source and the update on the target, additionally, there may be a longer distance between the source and the target which also introduces a delay, the presence of a delay in SEELA results in a replica that is non-instantaneous).
19. The computing system according to claim 15, wherein the second flash copy is an in-band flash copy (see BRUNING [0023]: the snapshots are synchronized and taken at the same time, this is considered in-band; applicants spec mentions an in-band copy as being made at a particular point in time, see [0045]).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEELA (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2022/0229734), BRUNING (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2011/0099148) and SALVARAJAN (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2021/0064238) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of SAYLES (U.S. Patent #10,951,699).
3. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 (see SEELA above), wherein the making of the second flash copy comprises: waiting for the secondary site to reach a consistency point equal to a point at which the first flash copy is created; and making the second flash copy at the consistency point following the waiting (see SAYLES below).
SAYLES discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: waiting for the secondary site to reach a consistency point equal to a point at which the first flash copy is created (see column 20, lines 53-60: data is transferred in cycles; column 18, lines 16-41: the data in the target site lag the data in the source site); and making the second flash copy at the consistency point following the waiting (see column 20, lines 20-40: after each cycle a snapshot is taken of the target site, by waiting until the cycle is over, the data that was part of the source snapshot and sent to the target site is now present on the target site). SAYLES discloses that it is known that in asynchronous replication systems, data from on the target site lags the data on the source site. SAYLES takes a snapshot of the source site (see column 18, lines 10-12) and transfers the data to the target site (see column 18, lines 12-14). Once the target site receives the data, the target site generates a snapshot (see column 20, lines 20-26). Since the snapshot of the source corresponds to the snapshot of the target, the system is considered as being at a consistency point. By waiting for a consistency point, the system can compensate for the known situation where the data set in the target lags the data set in the source (see column 18, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to wait for a consistency point before making the second flash copy, as disclosed by SAYLES. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to compensate for the lag of data updates between the source and the target, as taught by SAYLES. SEELA and SAYLES are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication.
10. The computer program product according to claim 8 (see SEELA above), wherein the making of the second flash copy comprises: waiting for the secondary site to reach a consistency point equal to a point at which the first flash copy is created; and making the second flash copy at the consistency point following the waiting (see SAYLES below).
SAYLES discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: waiting for the secondary site to reach a consistency point equal to a point at which the first flash copy is created (see column 20, lines 53-60: data is transferred in cycles; column 18, lines 16-41: the data in the target site lag the data in the source site); and making the second flash copy at the consistency point following the waiting (see column 20, lines 20-40: after each cycle a snapshot is taken of the target site, by waiting until the cycle is over, the data that was part of the source snapshot and sent to the target site is now present on the target site). SAYLES discloses that it is known that in asynchronous replication systems, data from on the target site lags the data on the source site. SAYLES takes a snapshot of the source site (see column 18, lines 10-12) and transfers the data to the target site (see column 18, lines 12-14). Once the target site receives the data, the target site generates a snapshot (see column 20, lines 20-26). Since the snapshot of the source corresponds to the snapshot of the target, the system is considered as being at a consistency point. By waiting for a consistency point, the system can compensate for the known situation where the data set in the target lags the data set in the source (see column 18, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to wait for a consistency point before making the second flash copy, as disclosed by SAYLES. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to compensate for the lag of data updates between the source and the target, as taught by SAYLES. SEELA and SAYLES are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication.
17. The computing system according to claim 15 (see SEELA above), wherein the making of the second flash copy comprises: waiting for the secondary site to reach a consistency point equal to a point at which the first flash copy is created; and making the second flash copy at the consistency point following the waiting (see SAYLES below).
SAYLES discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: waiting for the secondary site to reach a consistency point equal to a point at which the first flash copy is created (see column 20, lines 53-60: data is transferred in cycles; column 18, lines 16-41: the data in the target site lag the data in the source site); and making the second flash copy at the consistency point following the waiting (see column 20, lines 20-40: after each cycle a snapshot is taken of the target site, by waiting until the cycle is over, the data that was part of the source snapshot and sent to the target site is now present on the target site). SAYLES discloses that it is known that in asynchronous replication systems, data from on the target site lags the data on the source site. SAYLES takes a snapshot of the source site (see column 18, lines 10-12) and transfers the data to the target site (see column 18, lines 12-14). Once the target site receives the data, the target site generates a snapshot (see column 20, lines 20-26). Since the snapshot of the source corresponds to the snapshot of the target, the system is considered as being at a consistency point. By waiting for a consistency point, the system can compensate for the known situation where the data set in the target lags the data set in the source (see column 18, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to wait for a consistency point before making the second flash copy, as disclosed by SAYLES. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to compensate for the lag of data updates between the source and the target, as taught by SAYLES. SEELA and SAYLES are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEELA (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2022/0229734), BRUNING (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2011/0099148) and SALVARAJAN (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2021/0064238) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of BISSMEYER (U.S. Patent #10,671,493).
6. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 (see SEELA above), wherein: the making of the first flash copy of the first data at the primary site comprises making first flash copies of multiple volumes of the first data, the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site comprises asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copies to multiple replicas, and the making of the second flash copy of the second data at the secondary site comprises making flash copies of multiple volumes of the second data (see BISSMEYER below).
BISSMEYER discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: the making of the first flash copy of the first data at the primary site comprises making first flash copies of multiple volumes of the first data, the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site comprises asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copies to multiple replicas, and the making of the second flash copy of the second data at the secondary site comprises making flash copies of multiple volumes of the second data (see column 5, lines 53-60: users can add volumes to a session for mirroring the data). SEELA already discloses making a snapshot of a volume from a source site (see [0038]) and BRUNING already discloses making a snapshot at a target site (see [0008]). The references do not indicate the snapshots are made of multiple volumes. Incorporating multiple volumes in a replication session allows for multiple volumes within the set to be restored to a single consistent point in time (see column 5, lines 40-45). A combination of SEELA and BISSMEYER would result in SEELA taking a snapshot of multiple volumes that have been added to the mirror session. BRUNING would also take a snapshot of the same multiple volumes to allow the compare to function. A comparison between two different datasets would not be useful for verifying that the datasets are the same.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to perform a flash copy at the primary and secondary site of multiple volumes, as disclosed by BISSMEYER. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to create a session with multiple volumes that can be recovered to a single consistent point in time, as taught by BISSMEYER. SEELA and BISSMEYER are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to mirroring data.
13. The computer program product according to claim 8 (see SEELA above), wherein: the making of the first flash copy of the first data at the primary site comprises making first flash copies of multiple volumes of the first data, the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site comprises asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copies to multiple replicas, and the making of the second flash copy of the second data at the secondary site comprises making flash copies of multiple volumes of the second data (see BISSMEYER below).
BISSMEYER discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: the making of the first flash copy of the first data at the primary site comprises making first flash copies of multiple volumes of the first data, the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site comprises asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copies to multiple replicas, and the making of the second flash copy of the second data at the secondary site comprises making flash copies of multiple volumes of the second data (see column 5, lines 53-60: users can add volumes to a session for mirroring the data). SEELA already discloses making a snapshot of a volume from a source site (see [0038]) and BRUNING already discloses making a snapshot at a target site (see [0008]). The references do not indicate the snapshots are made of multiple volumes. Incorporating multiple volumes in a replication session allows for multiple volumes within the set to be restored to a single consistent point in time (see column 5, lines 40-45). A combination of SEELA and BISSMEYER would result in SEELA taking a snapshot of multiple volumes that have been added to the mirror session. BRUNING would also take a snapshot of the same multiple volumes to allow the compare to function. A comparison between two different datasets would not be useful for verifying that the datasets are the same.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to perform a flash copy at the primary and secondary site of multiple volumes, as disclosed by BISSMEYER. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to create a session with multiple volumes that can be recovered to a single consistent point in time, as taught by BISSMEYER. SEELA and BISSMEYER are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to mirroring data.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEELA (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2022/0229734), BRUNING (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2011/0099148) and SALVARAJAN (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2021/0064238) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of BISSMEYER (U.S. Patent #10,671,493) and SAYLES (U.S. Patent #10,951,699).
20. The computing system according to claim 15 (see SEELA above), wherein: the making of the first flash copy of the first data at the primary site comprises making first flash copies of multiple volumes of the first data, the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site comprises asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copies to multiple replicas, the making of the second flash copy of the second data at the secondary site comprises making flash copies of multiple volumes of the second data (see BISSMEYER below), and the method further comprises scheduling to use minimum resources in minimal time (see SAYLES below).
BISSMEYER discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: the making of the first flash copy of the first data at the primary site comprises making first flash copies of multiple volumes of the first data, the asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copy to the replica at the secondary site comprises asynchronous remote copying of the first flash copies to multiple replicas, and the making of the second flash copy of the second data at the secondary site comprises making flash copies of multiple volumes of the second data (see column 5, lines 53-60: users can add volumes to a session for mirroring the data). SEELA already discloses making a snapshot of a volume from a source site (see [0038]) and BRUNING already discloses making a snapshot at a target site (see [0008]). The references do not indicate the snapshots are made of multiple volumes. Incorporating multiple volumes in a replication session allows for multiple volumes within the set to be restored to a single consistent point in time (see column 5, lines 40-45). A combination of SEELA and BISSMEYER would result in SEELA taking a snapshot of multiple volumes that have been added to the mirror session. BRUNING would also take a snapshot of the same multiple volumes to allow the compare to function. A comparison between two different datasets would not be useful for verifying that the datasets are the same.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to perform a flash copy at the primary and secondary site of multiple volumes, as disclosed by BISSMEYER. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to create a session with multiple volumes that can be recovered to a single consistent point in time, as taught by BISSMEYER. SEELA and BISSMEYER are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to mirroring data.
SAYLES discloses the following limitations that are not disclosed by SEELA: scheduling to use minimum resources in minimal time (see column 17, lines 64 through column 18, line 10). Data is transferred incrementally in asynchronous replication mode to conserve bandwidth on the communication channels. Bandwidth is a system resource.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify SEELA to schedule the data transfer, as disclosed by SAYLES. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to conserve bandwidth, as taught by SAYLES. SEELA and SAYLES are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to asynchronous replication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOSTER [2020/0301785] discloses flash copy of a source volume and flash copy of a volume at a primary storage controller. [0042]-[0049]
WARD [2020/0117749] discloses a consistency group being formed once all data is copied, a snapshot taken of the consistency group and a flash copy of a secondary volume. [0027]-[0030]
BARUCH [10,235,090] discloses a snapshot mode for replication, asynchronous replication, storing a hash value with a snapshot taken at the source, determining a hash of a replica, comparing a hash of the replica with the hash attached to the snapshot to verify the replica. Columns 6, 8-9 and 11
BROWN [2018/0349042] disclose pausing writs to create a point-in-time copy. [0044]
BLEA [20018/0275897] discloses making a point-in-time copy of a volume at the secondary site and asynchronous mirroring. [0027]-[0034]
SHOENS [2013/0325824] discloses taking a signature of a source system and a replica system, then comparing the signatures to validate the replica. [0031]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J DUDEK JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00A-4:00P.
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, Hosain T Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/EDWARD J DUDEK JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132