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 Interpretation
Claim 1, claim 9, and claim 15 recite “to reduce an amount of I/O data in the host buffer when performance of the scheduled snapshot begins, which is expected to shorten a time to perform the scheduled snapshot.” Claim 8 recites “to reduce the amount of I/O data in a host buffer associated with each of the plurality of applications prior to the scheduled snapshot” and “to synchronize performance of the operations” Such portions of the claims are considered intended use/results by examiner. See MPEP 2103 Section C. Review the Claims “Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.” Recitation of intended use will not be given patentable weight.
Claims 15-20 are directed to one or more “computer readable storage media”, without reciting the computer readable storage media as being non-transitory. However, since paragraph [0052] of applicant’s originally filed specification indicates that “A computer readable storage media, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media.”, then claims 15-20 are interpreted as being limited to a non-transitory computer readable storage media. Therefore, the computer readable storage media of claims 15-20 is deemed statutory and does not include transitory signals. Due to such interpretation, claims 15-20 have not been rejected under 35 USC § 101 regarding transitory signals being a form of computer readable storage media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the application and the storage volume further comprise a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes to allow simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data.” The specification does not adequately disclose how a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes allows simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data. That is, the specification does not adequately disclose how the function of allowing simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data is performed by a consistency group, and/or how a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes achieves the function of allowing simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data. Paragraph [0018] of applicant’s originally filed specification recites “The consistency group allows simultaneous snapshots of the storage volumes 116 to be created using application-consistent data at a particular point in time.” Paragraph [0045] of applicant’s originally filed specification recites “the method 400 can be applied to a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes to allow simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data.” Paragraph [0018] and paragraph [0045] merely recite at a broad level that a consistency group allows simultaneous snapshots of the storage volumes 116 to be created using application-consistent data at a particular point in time, but do not provide adequate written description to one of ordinary skilled in the art how the consistency group would result in the function of allowing simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data.
All dependent claims are rejected for having the same deficiency as the claim(s) that they depend on.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the application and the storage volume further comprise a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes to allow simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data.” It is unclear as to how a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes allows simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data. Specifically, it is unclear as to how the function of allowing simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data is performed by a consistency group, and/or how a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes achieves the function of allowing simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data.
All dependent claims are rejected for having the same deficiency as the claim(s) that they depend on.
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, 5, 9, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (U.S. Patent No. 7,987,326) in view of Yang (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0405017) in view of Haravu (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0034246).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining that a scheduled snapshot of a storage volume is imminent (See Col. 5, lines 63-66 “The backup operations of FIGS. 8 and 9 may be initiated according to a periodic or scheduled time,” See Col. 5 lines 11-15 “If the backup operation comprises a virtual copy, such as a Snapshot copy, then the information for each backup may include information for the virtual copy 26,” See Col. 5 lines 27-30 “The backup set may also contain information about the Snapshot method used (incremental or non-incremental, background copy or no-copy, persistent or non-persistent)” See Figure 11, step 230 “Initiate backup operations”.), wherein the storage volume stores input/output (I/O) data associated with an application that executes on a host server (See Col. 3 lines 21-25 “The hosts 2 include one or more applications 8 that communicate Input/Output (I/O) requests directed to volumes in a storage system 10 via the storage server 4, which manages access to the storage system 10.”);
initiating at least one host buffer flush prior to the scheduled snapshot being performed (See Figure 11, step 232 “Communicate with host applications that write to the volumes in the volume group to prepare for a backup, in response, the hosts flush their cache and/or quiesce all writes to volumes in the volume group.” See claim 11 of Nguyen “communicating with the hosts that write to the volumes in the volume group to prepare for the backup operations for the volume group;” See claim 12 of Nguyen “The method of claim 11, wherein the communications with the hosts cause each host to perform at least one of quiescing all writes to the volumes in the volume group and flushing a host cache to write modified writes to the volumes.”),
Nguyen does not explicitly disclose what Yang teaches:
wherein I/O data in a host buffer associated with the application is transferred to a write cache of the storage volume to reduce an amount of I/O data in the host buffer when performance of the scheduled snapshot begins, which is expected to shorten a time to perform the scheduled snapshot (See Figure 1, in which data from host buffer 310 is sent/flushed to write buffer/cache 210 of the storage device 50. See Figure 5, Figure 6A, and Figure 6B, which teaches flushing I/O data in a host buffer to a write buffer/cache of a storage device. See [0050] “The write buffer 210 may store data flushed from the host 300. The data stored in the write buffer 210 may be programmed to the zone of the first storage area 150a or the zone buffer of the second storage area 150b.” See [0111]-[0125].);
initiating, in response to an indication that the host buffer flush has completed, a write cache flush to write the I/O data in the write cache to the storage volume (See Figure 5, Figure 6A, and Figure 6B, which teaches in response to receiving the host buffered data, flushing/programming I/O data from the write buffer/cache of a storage device to a memory zone/area of the memory device 100 (depicted in Figure 1). See [0050] “The write buffer 210 may store data flushed from the host 300. The data stored in the write buffer 210 may be programmed to the zone of the first storage area 150a or the zone buffer of the second storage area 150b.” See [0052] “The memory operation controller 220 may store the data flushed from the host 300 in the write buffer 210, and program the data stored in the write buffer 210 to the open zone of the first storage area 150a or the zone buffer corresponding to the open zone of the second storage area 150b.” See [0111]-[0125].); and
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 the claimed invention pertains to combine the backup operations method of Nguyen with the buffer management method of Yang to reduce a maintenance and management cost of a write buffer/cache when performing flush operations and/or transferring data from the host to a storge device (See [0039] and [0115] of Yang).
Nguyen and Yang do not explicitly disclose what Haravu teaches:
initiating the scheduled snapshot of the storage volume in response to an indication that the write cache flush has completed (See [0047] “Conventional approaches to generating an application-consistent snapshot include quiescing (e.g., pausing) the application to flush all of its dirty pages from memory (e.g., cache memory system 122) before issuing a snapshot request.”).
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 the claimed invention pertains to combine the backup operations method of Nguyen and the buffer management method of Yang to with the known and conventional application-consistent snapshot method of Haravu to yield predictable results, as the limitation rejected by Havaru is a known feature of application-consistent snapshots.
Regarding claim 5, Nguyen teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein initiating the scheduled snapshot of the storage volume comprises:
blocking new I/O data associated with the application from being written to the storage volume (See Figure 11, step 232 “Communicate with host applications that write to the volumes in the volume group to prepare for a backup, in response, the hosts flush their cache and/or quiesce all writes to volumes in the volume group.”);
creating a snapshot of the storage volume (See Figure 11, step 236 “Perform the backup of the volume group” See Col. 5 lines 11-15 “If the backup operation comprises a virtual copy, such as a Snapshot copy, then the information for each backup may include information for the virtual copy 26,” See Col. 5 lines 27-30 “The backup set may also contain information about the Snapshot method used (incremental or non-incremental, background copy or no-copy, persistent or non-persistent)”); and
resuming application I/O storage operations in response to an indication that the snapshot has been created (See Figure 11, step 238 “Communicate with the hosts that the backup was successful, and in response hosts end quiescing of writes to the volumes in the volume group.”).
Claim 9 and claim 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.Claim 13 and claim 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Yang in view of Haravu in view of Kalman et al. (Hereinafter Kalman, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0317893).
Regarding claim 7, Kalman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the application and the storage volume further comprise a consistency group of a plurality of applications and storage volumes to allow simultaneous snapshots to be created using application-consistent data (See [0003] “The storage operating system can use one or more consistency groups (CG) to protect data. A CG is a container (i.e. a logical structure) with a plurality of volumes that are managed as a single entity. A storage volume (or a logical unit number (“LUN”) is a logical object presented to computing devices to store and protect data. CGs are used to take simultaneous snapshot images of multiple volumes at a point in time.” See [0079] “An application consistent snapshot is taken after current operations for an application are paused (quiesced) and any data in a memory of a storage server is flushed to storage devices 118.”.).
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 the claimed invention pertains to combine the backup operations method of Nguyen and the buffer management method of Yang and the known and conventional application-consistent snapshot method of Haravu with the consistency group snapshot method of Kalman to guarantee application consistency and enable reliable data recovery by performing backup/snapshots for all volumes at the same time.
Regarding claim 8, Kalman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of applications and storage volumes are part of a distributed system, and operations to reduce the amount of I/O data in a host buffer associated with each of the plurality of applications prior to the scheduled snapshot are performed on each node of the distributed system at substantially the same time to synchronize performance of the operations (See [0009] “FIG. 2A shows an example of a clustered storage system with a plurality of storage system nodes” See [0047] “Although storage system 108 is shown as a stand-alone system, i.e. as a non-cluster based system, in another aspect, storage system 108 may have a distributed architecture, for example, a cluster-based storage system that is described below in detail with respect to FIG. 2A.”. See [0063] “Each node 208.1-208.3 is a computing system to provide services to one or more of the client systems 204.1-204.N and host systems 102A-102N.” See [0113] “The policy data structure 502 includes the replication policies 616 for the parent CG 160 and the child CGs 164 indicating a relationship between a primary and secondary storage system, a replication type (e.g., synchronous or asynchronous), replication sequence or any other information.” See [0002]-[0003]. Operations are performed on each node to provide simultaneous snapshots of the volumes on the nodes.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record failed to teach the totality of the combination of the claimed limitations
in each of the dependent claims 2-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 respectively, nor would it have been obvious. Specifically, no prior art was found for claims 2-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16-18 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See [0038] of Olin (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0059300). See [0038] of BK (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0031830). See abstract of Springberg (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133563).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L WESTBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-5028. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL L WESTBROOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139