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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Claim Objections
As per claim 1, it is objected to because in ll. 2, “a instruction” should be “an instruction”. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore objected to using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore objected to using the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims not specifically mentioned above are also objected to by virtue of being dependent upon the appropriate above objected to independent claim(s).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
predicting a change to a current state of the cluster based on the instruction (abstract idea mental process);
determining whether the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
intercepting a instruction that originates external to a cluster (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information), wherein the cluster comprises plural nodes each running a consensus component, and wherein a defined number of the consensus components are required for quorum (generic computing components);
in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss, preventing execution of the instruction (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would not result in quorum loss, permitting execution of the instruction (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
intercepting a instruction that originates external to a cluster (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information), wherein the cluster comprises plural nodes each running a consensus component, and wherein a defined number of the consensus components are required for quorum;
in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss, preventing execution of the instruction (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would not result in quorum loss, permitting execution of the instruction (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the nodes are in a control plane of the cluster (generic computing components); and the consensus components comprise instances of a distributed database (generic computing components).
Claim 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the change to the current state of the cluster comprises a number of the consensus components that would become unavailable as a result of executing the instruction (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the instruction bypasses a control plane of the cluster (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the change to the current state of the cluster is predicted using a predefined rule (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the change to the current state of the cluster is predicted using a machine learning algorithm (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss, sending an alert to a user that issued the instruction (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasko et al. (US 2017/0123663) (hereinafter Panasko in view of Liao (US 2021/0314179) in view of Yadwadkar (US 8,856,335) (hereinafter Yadwadkar) in view of Ranade (US 8,478,718).
As per claim 1, Panasko primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining whether the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss (fig. 12, blocks 2210-2240 and [0120] check whether performance of the command would cause the loss of a currently existing quorum);
in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss, preventing execution of the instruction (fig. 12, blocks 2210-2244 and [0120] when the performance of the command would cause the loss of a currently existing quorum then provide an indication that the command is rejected and not allow performance of the command); and
in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would not result in quorum loss, permitting execution of the instruction (fig. 12, blocks 2210-2280 and [0121]-[0124] when the performance of the command would not cause the loss of the currently existing quorum then permit execution of the command).
Panasko does not explicitly teach:
intercepting a instruction that originates external to a cluster, wherein the cluster comprises plural nodes each running a consensus component, and wherein a defined number of the consensus components are required for quorum;
predicting a change to a current state of the cluster based on the instruction.
However, Liao teaches wherein the cluster comprises plural nodes each running a consensus component ([0064] a binary agreement protocol is a protocol in which all consensus nodes agree on a single consensus proposal in a cluster. Only a consensus proposal with a binary agreement value of 1 is included in a final consensus result), and wherein a defined number of the consensus components are required for quorum ([0079] each of all consensus nodes sends a commit message to the other consensus nodes, and adds the commit message sent by the consensus node itself to a local log representing approval of the consensus node itself. When a consensus node finds that a quorum of a certain quantity of replicas required to meet a requirement for consistency of all replica data and a fault tolerance requirement agrees to the number allocation, the consensus node broadcasts a commit message to all other nodes).
Liao and Panasko are both concerned with managing cluster nodes and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao because it would provide a way for backup consensus nodes to start executing consensus logic in a pre-prepare stage, that is, the backup consensus nodes check, in the pre-prepare stage, whether a first timestamp sent by a primary consensus node is legitimate. Therefore, a step of service verification performed by the backup consensus nodes may be performed before checking a pre-prepare message. Once a first timestamp fails to pass the verification of the backup consensus nodes, execution of subsequent consensus logic is rejected, thereby avoiding unnecessary resource overheads.
Panasko in view of Liao does not explicitly teach:
intercepting a instruction that originates external to a cluster;
predicting a change to a current state of the cluster based on the instruction.
However, Yadwadkar teaches predicting a change to a current state of the cluster based on the instruction (col. 7, ll. 14-29 proposed cluster state change is based on an associated solution and configuration settings).
Yadwadkar and Panasko are both concerned with cluster node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar because it would provide a way for intelligently considering proposed solutions and accurately predicting the results of a proposed solution prior to actual implementation/execution of the proposed solution. This is of high importance due to the substantial amount of time and resources needed to reverse a proposed solution that does not achieve the intended results. As such, the resulting system would provide an effective method for considering proposed solutions and accurately predicting results of each proposed solution while considering optimization goal characteristics to produce a single evaluation value for each proposed state.
Panasko in view of Liao does not explicitly teach intercepting a instruction that originates external to a cluster.
However, Ranade teaches intercepting a instruction that originates external to a cluster (col. 12, ll. 23-27 intercept and block any attempt to add an additional node to the cluster and then synchronize the system clock of the additional node with the cluster before allowing the attempt to proceed).
Ranade and Panasko are both concerned with cluster node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade because it would provide a way of synchronizing the system clocks of nodes in a cluster and accounting for clock skew that exists despite the synchronization to identify a substantial number of independent write operations issued by nodes in the cluster without overburdening the cluster with expensive transfers of dependency information. By then applying these independent write operations to the replication process in parallel, the system may efficiently perform the replication e.g., preventing the replication process from falling far behind the primary data being replicated.
As per claim 7. Panasko further teaches in response to determining the change to the current state of the cluster would result in quorum loss, sending an alert to a user that issued the instruction (fig. 12, blocks 2250-2260; [0102]; [0121] transmit a warning notice if allowing the command will cause the loss of one or more quorums).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Karr et al. (US 2023/0350858) (hereinafter Karr).
As per claim 2, Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade do not explicitly teach wherein: the nodes are in a control plane of the cluster; and the consensus components comprise instances of a distributed database.
However, Karr teaches wherein: the nodes are in a control plane of the cluster ([0237]-[0238] control plane is implemented by multiple redundant nodes of the cluster); and the consensus components comprise instances of a distributed database ([0270]-[0271] distributed consensus mechanism associated with a distributed database).
Karr and Panasko are both concerned with cluster node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Karr because it would provide a solution for when communications fail or one or several storage systems in a pod fail, or when a storage system starts up or fails over to a secondary controller and can't communicate with paired storage systems for a pod. The solution would involve detaching one or more paired storage systems, by employing an algorithm or mechanism to decide that it is safe to do so and to follow through on the detach. One means of resolving detaches is using a majority or quorum model for membership.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Vijayan et al. (US 2016/0149828) (hereinafter Vijayan).
As per claim 3, over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade do not explicitly teach wherein the change to the current state of the cluster comprises a number of the consensus components that would become unavailable as a result of executing the instruction.
However, Vijayan teaches wherein the change to the current state of the cluster comprises a number of the consensus components that would become unavailable as a result of executing the instruction ([0031] determine the impact that could result from quiescence of controller E. To determine the impact, the audit engine determines whether logical unit A would become unavailable to any node of the cluster).
Vijayan and Panasko are both concerned with cluster node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Vijayan because it would provide a way to facilitate determining the impact of the potential quiescence of a component, path, etc. of a cluster. The audit engine may include functionalities to determine whether the potential quiescence might result in a resource being inaccessible, a service level violation, a decrease in performance, etc.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Krivenok (US 2020/0252344).
As per claim 4, Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade does not explicitly teach wherein the instruction bypasses a control plane of the cluster.
However, Krivenok teaches wherein the instruction bypasses a control plane of the cluster ([0048] bypassing a cluster control plane).
Krivenok and Panasko are both concerned with cluster node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Krivenok because it would provide for heterogeneous storage clusters configured to support jumbo frames while avoiding overprovisioning of system buffers. As a result of the logical network maximum transmission units being changed, one or more jumbo frames may be supported on a per-logical network basis, which allows for system resources to be efficiently utilized. Further, overprovisioning of one or more system buffers may be avoided.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Kaguma et al. (US 2017/0346887) (hereinafter Kaguma).
As per claim 5, over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade does not explicitly teach wherein the change to the current state of the cluster is predicted using a predefined rule.
However, Kaguma teaches wherein the change to the current state of the cluster is predicted using a predefined rule ([0090] resource index tracking algorithm uses trends in the available resources to predict from previous behavior how/whether a node's current status or indices is/are going to change).
Kaguma and Panasko are both concerned with node management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Kaguma because it would provide for efficient arrangement, use, and management of networked electronic devices. The networked electronic devices are configured to form a peer-to-peer network, and to allocate management, download, and aggregation responsibilities among themselves to improve efficiency. Networking errors are minimized by replacing faulting nodes with idle nodes.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Wetterwald et al. (US 2016/0021014) (hereinafter Wetterwald).
As per claim 6, Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade does not explicitly teach wherein the change to the current state of the cluster is predicted using a machine learning algorithm.
However, Wetterwald teaches wherein the change to the current state of the cluster is predicted using a machine learning algorithm ([0034] utilize machine learning techniques to predict a future state of the network e.g., predict routing changes, predict time slot usage by nodes, etc.).
Wetterwald and Panasko are both concerned with node management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panasko in view of Liao in view of Yadwadkar in view of Ranade in view of Wetterwald because it would provide for machine learning techniques using of an underlying model, whose parameters are optimized for minimizing the cost function associated to the model, given the input data. For instance, in the context of classification, the model may be a straight line that separates data into two classes and the cost function would be the number of misclassified points. The learning process then operates by adjusting the parameters of the model such that the number of misclassified points is minimal. After this optimization phase or learning phase, the model can be used very easily to classify new data points.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Yucel et al. (US 8,484,163) disclose cluster configuration backup and recovery.
Schreter (US 2017/0364273) disclose consensus protocol enhancements for supporting flexible durability options.
Schatz et al. (US 2017/0116095) disclose third vote consensus in a cluster using shared storage devices.
Raman et al. (US 2019/0340011) disclose resource-governed protocol and runtime for distributed databases with consistency models.
Orgenberg et al. (US 2021/0028977) disclose reduced quorum for a distributed system to provide improved service availability.
Lee et al. (US 2012/0198455) disclose supporting service level quorum in a data grid cluster.
Gahlot et al. (US 2017/0094003) disclose preventing data corruption due to pre-existing split brain.
Dinker (US 2004/0254984) disclose coordinating cluster serviceability updates over distributed consensus within a distributed data system cluster.
Bruce et al. (US 2015/0081805) disclose consensus loss in distributed control systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights