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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 24 January 2023.
Claims 8,17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: logic in claim 19-20, support for which was taken as Processing Circuitry of FIG 1: 120, and paragraphs [0022] and [0044] of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 1-4,7,9-13,16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (US PG PUB No. 2017/0277443) in view of Takashi (US PG PUB No. 2008/0091898) and Chen (US PG PUB No. 20220357998).
As per claim [1,10,19], a computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a write data migration plan based on the routing table, wherein the write data migration plan specifies which of the caches of the remote storage systems to migrate at least some write data originally intended to be stored on the cache of the local storage system to (see Deguchi [0095]-[0096]: “In S1005, the write program 515 may store the write data in the physical storage device 240, without storing the write data in the cache.”); and
[Deguchi discloses selectively caching hot data and further discloses migrating data based on access frequency to a mapped cloud location, where the selectively caching and migrating is taken as a migration plan as recited in the claims.]
in response to a determination that a first predetermined condition associated with the cache of the local storage system is met, causing performance of the write data migration plan to share selected caches of the remote storage system to prevent write cache overdrive and balance performance of a write workload (see Deguchi [0121]: “When there is not enough cache as an allocation destination at the time of IO, the destage program 516 may also be called from a program that processes an IO.”).
However, Deguchi does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Takashi discloses
obtaining information about a plurality of remote storage systems (see Takashi FIG 9: T2 and [0115]), wherein each of the remote storage systems includes a cache (see e.g., Takashi FIG 4: 230), and
dynamically generating a routing table based on the information, the routing table indicating potential write data migration paths from a cache of a local storage system to the caches of the remote storage systems (see Takashi FIG 9: T3 and [0119]);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deguchi to further obtain storage information and manage virtual volume mappings as taught by Takashi .
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of dynamic storage management (see e.g., Takashi [0021]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deguchi to further obtain information and generate routing table as taught by Takashi for the benefit of dynamic storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Deguchi does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Chen discloses
obtaining information including cache attributes of the remote storage systems (see Chen [0058]);
dynamically generating a migration plan based on the cache attributes of the remote storage systems (see Chen [0066]);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Deguchi to further consider information including cache attributes of the remote storage system as taught by Chen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of workload balancing (see Chen [0066]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deguchi to further obtain information on the cache attributes of the remote storage systems and generating a migration plan based on the cache attributes of the remote storage systems for the benefit of improved workload balancing to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim [2,11,20], the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the routing table and the write data migration plan are generated based on calculations selected from the group consisting of: predicted write workloads of the caches of the remote storage systems, predicted sizes of available write resources of the caches of the remote storage systems, predicted available write cache size of the caches of the remote storage systems, and latencies each associated with use of a different one of the potential write data migration paths (see Takashi FIG 19: I/O Response Time and [0155]) .
[Takashi discloses taking the I/O response time or latencies in to account for constructing a routing table and migration plan.]
As per claim [3,12], the computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the calculations are performed for a next time slot of operation of the storage systems that immediately follows a current time slot of operation of the storage systems, wherein the information includes historical data that is based on the current time slot of operation of the storage systems and/or previous time slot(s) of operation of the storage systems (see Deguchi FIG 11: S3000 and [0132]).
[Deguchi discloses I/O frequency information for each area of the virtual volume which is taken to correspond to calculations performed for a next time slot of operations.]
As per claim [4,13], the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the first predetermined condition includes usage of the cache of the local storage system exceeding a first predetermined threshold, wherein causing the write data migration plan to be performed includes migrating the at least some write data originally intended to be stored on the cache of the local storage system to remote storage system(s) specified in the write data migration plan (see Deguchi [0121]: “When there is not enough cache as an allocation destination at the time of IO, the destage program 516 may also be called from a program that processes an IO.”), and comprising:
in response to a determination that the first predetermined condition is not met and/or that the usage falls below the first predetermined threshold, causing the at least some write data originally intended to be stored on the cache of the local storage system and new write data to be stored on the cache of the local storage system (see e.g., Deguchi FIG S1003 and also [0096]); and
in response to a determination that the usage falls below a second predetermined threshold: causing the new write data to be stored on the cache of the local storage system, and migrating data stored in the remote storage system(s) specified in the write data migration plan back to the cache of the local storage system (see FIG 11: S30005 and [0133]).
As per claim [7,16], the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the write data migration plan specifies where to migrate the at least some write data originally intended to be stored on the cache of a first of the remote storage systems, and comprising: in response to a determination that a first predetermined condition associated with the cache of the first remote storage system is met, causing the write data migration plan to be performed (see Deguchi [0135])
As per claim [9,18], the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the cache of the local storage system is a non-volatile write cache, wherein the caches of the remote storage systems are non-volatile write caches (see Takashi [0086]).
[Takashi discloses non-volatile cache where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to implement non-volatile caches for the benefit of data protection .]
Claim 5-6,14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (US PG PUB No. 2017/0277443) in view of Takashi (US PG PUB No. 2008/0091898) and Chen (US PG PUB No. 20220357998) as applied to claims 1, and 10 above and further in view of Milillo (US Pat No. 5566315)
As per claim [5,14], the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
However, Deguchi does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Milillo
wherein least recently used write data and sequential write data are migrated to the specified caches of the remote storage systems as a result of the write data migration plan being performed (see Milillo COL 2 LINES 30-40).
[Milillo discloses freeing cache based on least recently used basis, where Takashi further discloses data may be sequential and random (see Takashi [0020]).]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a least recently used eviction as taught by Milillo.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of retaining frequently accessed data (see Milillo COL 2 LINES 30-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further migrate based on least recently used data sequential and random data for the benefit of retaining frequently accessed data as taught by Milillo to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim [6,15], the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving feedback that is based on performance of the write data migration plan; performing updates to increase efficiency of a subsequent performance of the write data migration plan, wherein the updates are selected from the group consisting of: adjusting a size of time slots of operation of the storage systems, and adjusting the predetermined condition; and re-generating the routing table and/or the write data migration plan subsequent to the updates being performed (see e.g., Milillo FIG 10: 124 and COL 11 LINES 1-5).
[Milillo discloses adjusting the threshold or predetermined condition to increase efficiency of subsequent performance of the write data migration plan.]
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s arguments.
1st ARGUMENT:
As noted above, during the Examiner Interview held on July 8, 2026, the Examiner indicated that the potential amendments do not appear to be taught by the combination of Deguchi and Takashi. Accordingly, the amendments have been incorporated into independent claims 1, 10, and 19. As such, claims 1, 10, and 19 are now in condition for allowance. Additionally, any claim that depends, either directly or indirectly, on claims 1, 10, or 19 is also in condition for allowance. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner notes Chen is relied upon to teach obtaining information including cache attributes of the remote storage systems (see Chen [0058]) and generating a migration plan based on the cache attributes of the remote storage systems (see Chen [0066]).
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.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached on 571-272-1077. 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.
/KALPIT PARIKH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
KALPIT . PARIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights