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 27 July 2026.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26, 28-30, 33, 35-37, 39, 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freyensee (US PG PUB No. 20170344259).
As per claim [21,28,35], a computer system (see FIG 1: 100) comprising:
a computing node (see FIG 1: 102);
at least one storage node (see FIG 1: 104); and
a network device (see FIG 1: 106), wherein the network device is configured to form network connection between the at least one storage node and the computing node and transmit data between the computing node and the at least one storage node (see [0019]: “The target system 106 may include a secure tun neling mode module 122 for secure communications from the host nodes 102 , . . . 102 , and one or more fabric layer protocols 124 , compatible with the fabric protocol 114 used by the host nodes 1021 . . . 1027”), wherein the computing node comprises a processor and an operating system (see [0018]: “Each of the host nodes 1021 . . . 102n , includes , as shown with respect to host node 102 ; , a logical device interface protocol 112 , to perform read / write operations with respect to the storage devices 104 , . . . 104m and a fabric protocol 114 to communicate over the fabric 108”), a service runs in the processor and the operating system (see FIG 1: 112a, 114 and [0018]), and the computing node is a server or a virtual entity (see [0018]),
wherein the at least one storage node stores data of the service by using a storage medium (see [0014]: “The host transmits a read / write request using a in logical device interface protocol , such as NVMe , to a target system which the virtual subsystems and virtual namespaces are implemented”), and
wherein the network device comprises a processor and a memory (see [0041]), and the memory stores instructions that when executed cause the processor to:
receive, from the computing node, a write request for storing to-be-written data of the service to the at least one storage node to offload processing of the write request from the processor of the computing node to the network (see FIG 9A: 900 and [0037]);
obtain metadata corresponding to the to-be-written data (see FIG 9B: 912 and [0037]);
obtain, according to the metadata, a storage location of the to-be-written data (see FIG 9B: 916; and [0037])
store the to-be-written data to plurality of data fragments and the parity fragments to the at least one storage node according to the storage location (see FIG 9B: 918 and [0037]).
As per claim [22,29,36], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein the network device is further configured to manage a first logical storage space corresponding to the data of the service (see FIG 1: 106 and [0019]).
As per claim [23,30,37], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein the network device is further configured to store the metadata in the network device of the data of the service (see FIG 1: 200 and [0019])
As per claim [26,33,39], the computer system of claim 21,
wherein the network connection between the at least one storage node and the computing node is formed by using a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection (see [0019]).
As per claim [44,45], the method of claim 21,
wherein further comprising performing network process to the to-be-written data (See FIG 9B: 916 and [0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 27,34,40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyensee (US PG PUB No. 20170344259) in view of Olarig (US PG PUB No. 20200042252).
As per claim [27,34], the computer system of claim 21,
However, Freyensee does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor discloses
wherein the network device divides the to-be-written data into a plurality of data fragments according to a preset erasure coding (EC) algorithm or a redundant array of independent disks (RAID) algorithm (see Olarig [0042]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention modify Freyensee to divide the data according to a RAID algorithm as taught by Olarig.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving data protection (see Olarig [0042]: RAID).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further preform parity calculation as taught by Olarig for the benefit of data protection to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 40, the network device of claim 35,
wherein, after obtaining the write request, the network device is further configured to: divide the to-be-written data into a plurality of data fragments;
store the plurality of data fragments and the parity fragments to the at least one storage node.
However, Frenesee does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor discloses
calculate parity fragments of the plurality of data fragments (see Olarig [0050]); and
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further implement parity calculation on the network device as taught by Olarig.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving data protection (see Olarig [0042]: RAID).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further preform parity calculation as taught by Olarig for the benefit of data protection to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim(s) 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freyensee (US PG PUB No. 20170344259) in view of Orikasa (US PG PUB No. 2011/0167236)
As per claim [41,42.43]. the computer system of claim 22,
wherein the first logical storage space corresponding to a plurality storage nodes (see Freyensee 9B: 912 and [0037]), and
However, Freyensee does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor discloses
the plurality storage nodes comprise different types of storage nodes (see Orikasa FIG 3: VVOL#01 and [0147]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further implement plurality of storage nodes comprising different types of storage nodes as taught by Orikasa.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improved tiered storage (see Orikasa [0007]-[0008]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Freyensee to further implement a logical storage space comprising plurality storage nodes comprise different types of storage nodes as taught by Orikasa for improved tiered storage to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
1st ARGUMENT:
As the foregoing disclosure of Freyensee makes clear, it is the fabric 108 that interconnects a number of host node 102₁ ~102n and the target system 106. Even assuming arguendo that a network device is used within the fabric 108 to interconnect the number of host node 1021 ~102n and the target system 106, Freyensee does not disclose a network device that performs any other functions. In claim 35, the network device is not only configured to couple the storage node to the computing node and transmit data between the computing node and the storage node, but also is further configured to receive, from the computing node, a write request for storing to-be- written data of a service to the storage node to offload processing of the write request from the processor of the computing node to the network device, wherein the service is run on the computing node; obtain metadata corresponding to the to-be-written data; obtain, according to the metadata, a storage location of the to-be-written data; and store the to-be-written data of the service to the storage node according to the storage location. Freyensee does not disclose "a network device" that meets the requirements of claim 35 and performs these functions. Therefore, the claimed network device in claim 35 is not disclosed by Freyensee.
Examiner notes the Target System is taken as a network device as recited in the claims because the Target System includes module for secure communication from the host nodes to the storage devices. Freyensee discloses the virtual device layer 132 in the Target System “generates and manages virtualization definitions in a target system memory 136 that provide representations of target hardware and physical namespaces to the host nodes 102 , . . . 102 , , including virtual subsystem definitions 200 , virtual controller definitions 300 , and virtualization namespace definitions 400 (see Freyensee [0019]).
2nd ARGUMENT:
Further, Freyensee discloses each of the host nodes 1021 102n, includes, as shown with respect to host node 102i, a logical device interface protocol 112a to perform read/write operations. Based on the above disclosure, before sending a read/write request to the target system, the host node of Freyensee performs read/write operations to the read/write request. However, in claim 35, the processing of the write request is offloaded from the processor of the computing node to the network device. Namely, in claim 35, the processing of the write request bypasses the one or more processors of the computing node. In contrast, in Freyensee, the write request still needs to be processed by the host nodes that cannot be bypassed.
Examiner maintains “offload processing” is sufficiently broad to encompass mapping the request to the appropriate storage devices as disclosed by Freyensee. Applicant is arguing an intended result (i.e., bypasses the one or more processors of the computing node). Freyensee discloses “offload processing” to the extent Freyensee discloses obtaining metadata, determining the storage locations of the to-be-written data and performing storage operations.
3rd ARGUMENT:
Although Freyensee discloses that the target system determines corresponding physical namespace of the virtual namespace of the read/write request in paragraph 0036, the target system is for managing read/write requests and connecting the storage device through PCIe bus. The target system of Freyensee cannot set network connection between at least one storage node and a computing node and transmit data between the computing node and the at least one storage node. Therefore, the target system in Freyensee is different from the network device of claim 35.
Examiner maintains Freyensee discloses setting a network connection as argued because the Target System forms a network connection between the at least one storage and the computing node to transmit commands from the computing node to the storage node.
4th ARGUMENT:
As shown above, Olarig only discloses a RAID controller 415 connected to Ethernet switch 105 generates parity value and stores the data to the disks after the parity value is generated.
Examiner notes Olarig is relied upon to teach implementing a RAID controller in an intermediate network device. Olarig discloses the Ethernet Switch incldues “a RAID controller or RAID On Chip (ROC), or a state machine, to process read or write commands that may be received from a remote host.” Olarig therefore further teaches “offload processing” including RAID processing as recited in the claims.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20160378353: Provided are a method, system, computer readable storage medium, and switch for configuring a switch to assign partitions in storage devices to compute nodes. A management controller configures the switch to dynamically allocate partitions of at least one of the storage devices to the compute nodes based on a workload at the compute node.
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
