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 Status
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended limitation “wherein, with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure without having to transfer the data for backup to a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component within the enclosure and without having to perform the snapshot data generation and compaction using the a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component within the enclosure, input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced” overcomes the 101 rejection. Examiner disagrees because “input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced” is the bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
103 Rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-22 have been fully considered and are
persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of
rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Khan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
• STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (system), Claim 11 recites a process (method), claim 21 recites a machine (system).
• STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite “compact the snapshot data to generate compacted snapshot data of the data” which describes manipulating data using a compression algorithm. The digital compression of data is a performance of a mathematical algorithm, and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
• STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial
Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a system comprising: a server; a storage; and a storage system remotely coupled to the server through a network, wherein the storage system includes: at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server through the network; and at least one computing component within an enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device enclosing one or more solid state drives and coupled to the network, wherein the at least one computing component within the enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device is configured to” which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 11 recites “a method for operating a system including a server, a storage and a storage system remotely coupled to the server through a network, comprising: providing the storage system, which includes at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server through the network, and at least one computing component within an enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device enclosing one or more solid state drives and coupled to the network” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 21 recites “a storage system remotely coupled to a server through a network, the storage system comprising: at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server through the network; and at least one computing component within an enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device enclosing one or more solid state drives and coupled to the network, wherein the at least one computing component within the enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device is configured to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1, 11, and 21 recite “generate snapshot data based on data for backup, which is stored in the storage device” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claim 1, 11, and 21 recite “transfer, from the at least one computing component within the enclosure to the storage, the compacted snapshot data through a storage client interface for the storage” which is insignificant-extra solution activity. Adding a final step of “transferring data” does not add a meaningful limitation to the judicial exception, and therefore, the additional element is insignificant-extra solution activity.
Claim 1, 11, and 21 recite “wherein, with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure without having to transfer the data for backup to a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component within the enclosure and without having to perform the snapshot data generation and compaction using the a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component within the enclosure, input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced, wherein the storage system including the at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server is cloud based” which is the bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art; therefore, the claim does not provide an improvement.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite the mere idea of a solution. The courts have determined the mere idea of a solution does not qualify as an improvement to technology (see McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107).
For the reasons above, claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 2-10, 12-20. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claims 2 and 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 recites a machine (system), claim 12 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the at least one solid state storage device includes a non-volatile memory express (NVMe) over Fabrics (NVMe-oF) solid state drive (SSD)” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claims 3 and 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 3 recites a machine (system), claim 13 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the network includes Ethernet” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claims 4 and 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 4 recites a machine (system), claim 14 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the storage includes an object storage” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claims 5 and 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 5 recites a machine (system), claim 15 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recite “wherein the at least one computing component is further configured to: selectively perform at least one of compression and encryption for the compacted snapshot data” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 6 and 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 recites a machine (system), claim 16 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the data for backup includes NVMe commands, each associated with one of insert, update and delete commands” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 7 recites a machine (system), claim 17 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein each NVMe command includes capsulation of a particular command and data associated with the particular command” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 8 and 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 8 recites a machine (system), claim 18 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the at least one computing component generates the snapshot data by: batching the NVMe commands based on set batching criteria to generate one or more batch command sets; allocating an identifier to each batch command set; and generating the snapshot data including multiple command sets, each command set including a key as the identifier and a value of each batch command set when a set condition satisfies” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 9 and 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 9 recites a machine (system), claim 19 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the set batching criteria includes one of time, data size and request counts, wherein the condition includes one of a set time, a set data size and a set request count, and wherein the multiple command sets include multiple batch command sets corresponding to the set condition” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 10 and 20
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 10 recites a machine (system), claim 20 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite “wherein the computing component allocates the identifier based on an identifier of the at least one solid state storage device and a value of date” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 22
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 22 recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced due to reduced data movement when not using the computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device” which is the bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined the bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art does not provide an improvement to technology. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC., 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
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, 3-5, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malina et al (US 20170220463 A1) hereafter Malina in view of Lakshman et al (US 20160004603 A1) hereafter Lakshman in view of Kahn et al (US 20160378352 A1) hereafter Kahn
Regarding claim 1, Malina teaches a system comprising: a server (Para 0029, system 100 may include additional hosts acting as servers); a storage (Para 0030, data storage system); and a storage system remotely coupled to the server through a network (Para 0032, Network interface 126 is configured to connect DSD), wherein the storage system includes: at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server through the network (Para 0030, DSD 106 includes one or both of solid-state memory); and at least one computing component within an enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device and coupled to the network wherein the at least one computing component within the enclosure of the at least one solid state storage device is configured to: generate snapshot data based on data for backup, which is stored in the storage device (Para 0052, applications can include data backup); compact the snapshot data to generate compacted snapshot data of the data which is stored in the at least one solid state storage device (Para 0069, processor can perform data compression); and transfer, from the at least one computing component within the enclosure to the storage, the compacted snapshot data through a storage client interface for the storage (Para 0099, processor 138 performs the command to store the data in the NVM using the selected data writing methodology) ,thereby, with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure, input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced (Para 0118, process data more efficiently and reduce network traffic).
Malina does not appear to explicitly teach with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure without having to perform the snapshot data generation and compaction using a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component with the enclosure, input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced, wherein the storage system including the at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server is cloud based.
In analogous art, Lakshman teaches with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure without having to perform the snapshot data generation and compaction using a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component with the enclosure, input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced, wherein the storage system including the at least one solid state storage device remotely coupled to the server is cloud based (Para 0133, the command in step 604 may specify that the clone virtual disk must use compression, that its data should be stored upon solid-state drives, that its replication factor should be five, that its replication policy should be hybrid cloud data center aware). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to modify Malina to include the teaching of Lakshman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide data storage, as taught by Lakshman (Para 0002, The present invention relates generally to data storage within a data center).
Malina in view of Lakshman does not appear to explicitly teach “wherein, with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure without having to transfer the data for backup to a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component within the enclosure”.
In analogous art, Khan teaches wherein, with snapshot data generation and compaction occurring by the at least one computing component within the enclosure (Para 0022, logic 160 facilitates operations related to some embodiments such as efficient non-volatile memory data compression scheme and/or layout) without having to transfer the data for backup to a computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device containing the at least one computing component within the enclosure (Para 0023, Logic 160 may be located in various locations in system 100 of FIG. 1 as discussed, as well as inside SSD controller logic 125). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malina in view of Lakshman to include the teaching of Khan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to save on storage cost, as taught by Khan (Para 0012, compression may be utilized in an SSD to compress data so that more data fits on the same portion of an SSD, resulting in a lower implementation cost on a per megabyte basis).
Regarding claim 3, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the network includes Ethernet (Malina, Para 0032, Network interface 126 is configured to connect DSD 106 with network 102 using, for example, an Ethernet connection or a WiFi wireless connection).
Regarding claim 4, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the storage includes an object storage (Malina, Para 0043, By executing a file system on DSD 106, it is ordinarily possible to tailor the file system to a particular storage media used by DSD 106 to store data).
Regarding claim 5, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing component is further configured to: selectively perform at least one of compression and encryption for the compacted snapshot data (Malina, Para 0057, In addition to the tasks mentioned above of data encryption, data compression).
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 21 is the system claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 22, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the input/output processing and computing overhead of the storage system are reduced due to reduced data movement when not using the computational resource outside the at least one solid state storage device (Khan, Para 0023, Logic 160 may be located in various locations in system 100 of FIG. 1 as discussed, as well as inside SSD controller logic 125). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malina in view of Lakshman to include the teaching of Khan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to save on storage cost, as taught by Khan (Para 0012, compression may be utilized in an SSD to compress data so that more data fits on the same portion of an SSD, resulting in a lower implementation cost on a per megabyte basis).
Claims 2, 6-10, 12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan further in view of Chagam Reddy (US 20180285294 A1) hereafter Chagam Reddy
Regarding claim 2, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the storage device includes a non-volatile memory express (NVMe) over Fabrics (NVMe- oF) solid state drive (SSD).
In analogous art, Chagam Reddy teaches wherein the storage device includes a non-volatile memory express (NVMe) over Fabrics (NVMe- oF) solid state drive (SSD) (Para 0025, storage which communicates with host(s) over a non-volatile memory express-over fabric (NVMe-oF) protocol). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan to include the teaching of Chagam Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide faster access speeds, as taught by Chagam Reddy (Para 0025, storage having faster access speed).
Regarding claim 6, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the data for backup includes NVMe commands, each associated with one of insert, update and delete commands.
In analogous art, Chagam Reddy teaches wherein the data for backup includes NVMe commands, each associated with one of insert, update and delete commands (Para 0003, A data center network may include a plurality of nodes which may generate, use, modify, and/or delete a large number of data content). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan to include the teaching of Chagam Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide faster access speeds, as taught by Chagam Reddy (Para 0025, storage having faster access speed).
Regarding claim 7, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan in view of Chagam Reddy teaches the system of claim 6, wherein each NVMe command includes capsulation of a particular command and data associated with the particular command (Chagam Reddy, Para 0055, DSS module 106 may be configured to generate a submission command capsule). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan to include the teaching of Chagam Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide faster access speeds, as taught by Chagam Reddy (Para 0025, storage having faster access speed).
Regarding claim 8, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan in view of Chagam Reddy teaches the system of claim 7, wherein batching the NVMe commands based on set batching criteria to generate one or more batch command sets (Chagam Reddy, Para 0056, the submission command capsule generated may comprise a packet formatted in accordance with the NVMe-oF protocol ); allocating an identifier to each batch command set (Para 0056, such as an identifier or indication that the IO request comprises a foreground operation); and generating the snapshot data including multiple command sets (Para 0058, QoS module 142 may be configured to receive volume groups information for the storage 140 from rack scale module), each command set including a key as the identifier and a value of each batch command set when a set condition satisfies (Para 0056, The metadata pointer field may include IO request type information such as an identifier). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan to include the teaching of Chagam Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide faster access speeds, as taught by Chagam Reddy (Para 0025, storage having faster access speed).
Regarding claim 9, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan in view of Chagam Reddy teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the set batching criteria includes one of time, data size and request counts, wherein the condition includes one of a set time, a set data size and a set request count, and wherein the multiple command sets include multiple batch command sets corresponding to the set condition (Chagam Reddy, Para 0049, time and date of inclusion in the tray/drawer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan to include the teaching of Chagam Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide faster access speeds, as taught by Chagam Reddy (Para 0025, storage having faster access speed).
Regarding claim 10, Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan in view of Chagam Reddy teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the computing component allocates the identifier based on an identifier of the storage device and a value of date (Chagam Reddy, Para 0049, Examples of information discovered for each rack in which a drive may undergo discovery may include, without limitation, rack identifier, rack's spatial location). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Malina in view of Lakshman in view of Khan to include the teaching of Chagam Reddy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide faster access speeds, as taught by Chagam Reddy (Para 0025, storage having faster access speed).
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the system 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 7, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 8, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 9, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 10, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166