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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 14, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappel et al. (US8261122B1).
Kappel discloses:
1. A system, comprising:
a processor programmed to:
receive a request to generate a recovery prediction that includes one or more results of a simulated recovery of a Computer Network System (CNS), the request identifying a portion or all of the CNS for which the recovery prediction is to be made; (col 9, ln 35-45: The recovery manager 16 may accept user input identifying the desired accuracy of the validation (block 40). For example, the recovery manager 16 may display the supported calculation methods (or cause the methods to be displayed) to the user and the user may select the desired method. Alternatively, the user may input accuracy preferences in a qualitative sense (e.g. sliding a slider bar between most accurate and least accurate); col 9, ln 48-51: For example, in one embodiment, the validation methods may include computation of estimated recovery metrics using existing statistical data (e.g. the metric data 18), computation of estimated recovery metrics using testing or simulations)
identify a plurality of data objects to be recovered based on the portion or all of the CNS specified in the request; (col 9, ln 44-55: The recovery manager 16 may select the validation method based on the user input (block 42) and may calculate recovery metrics using the selected validation method (block 44). The recovery manager 16 may support various validation methods. For example, in one embodiment, the validation methods may include computation of estimated recovery metrics using existing statistical data (e.g. the metric data 18), computation of estimated recovery metrics using testing or simulations, and determination of recovery metrics using actual recovery execution (either in a test environment or, if actual recovery of the assets in question is recorded in the metric data 18, using the metric data 18).)
access a recovery pattern comprising data indicating a number of streams available to recover the plurality of data objects during the simulated recovery of the portion or all of the CNS and a recovery speed of each of the streams; (col 4, ln 22-29: Various embodiments may also capture other aspects of the host 10 and or the environment in which the recovery is performed as metrics. For example, the hardware capabilities of the host 10 may be captured via metrics. The hardware capabilities may include, in various embodiments, one or more of: the network capabilities (e.g. the network connection speed, type of network connection, network hardware))
execute a bin packing model to simulate recovery of the plurality of data objects based on use of one or more streams that are initially available, become unavailable while the one or more streams are used to simulate recovery of one or more data objects, become available again after the one or more data objects are simulated to be recovered, and recovery of additional ones of the plurality of data objects as the one or more streams become available; (col 10, ln 5-15: If this method is selected, the recovery manager 16 may perform the trial runs/simulations to collect the statistical data, and may estimate the recovery metrics using the statistical data. For example, the testing may include testing various aspects of the recovery (e.g. verifying the media on which an asset copy is stored, verifying the data integrity of the asset, verifying data path connectivity to the asset copy, and/or verifying the data path performance). Measuring metrics for these aspects provides data that may be used to formulate a recovery metric estimate; fig 3; col 4, ln 35-40: Metrics corresponding to the environment may include the network activity/bandwidth at the time of the data protection operation, resource utilization, etc) [examiner’s note: par 38 of the Spec: "The bin packing model 148 is a computational model for simulating recovery of the CNS 101 specified for recovery modeling."] [examiner’s note 2: par 54 of the Spec states, “A stream may be determined to become available based on the recovery speed of the stream and a size of a data object recovered by the stream.” Thus, network/stream bandwidth depends on resource utilization.]
output, by the bin packing model, a recovery time estimate that includes a predicted amount of time for the recovery based on the recovery speed of each of the streams and the simulated recovery; (col 9, ln 45-55: the validation methods may include computation of estimated recovery metrics using existing statistical data (e.g. the metric data 18), computation of estimated recovery metrics using testing or simulations, and determination of recovery metrics using actual recovery execution (either in a test environment or, if actual recovery of the assets in question is recorded in the metric data 18, using the metric data 18); fig 3)
generate a recovery prediction based on the recovery time estimate; and (estimation of recovery time)
modifying, based on the recovery prediction, a number of recovery resources activated for recovery to improve recovery times. (fig 6: 64: Yes; claim 14; col 11, ln 42-46: the decision support features may provide the user with functionality to experiment with different protection configurations to improve the recovery metrics, and perhaps over time improve the match between recovery targets and recovery objectives as well.)
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the portion or all of the CNS corresponds to a minimum Line of Business (LOB) that requires recovery of a minimum number of devices and their corresponding data objects, wherein the processor is further programmed to identify the plurality of data objects based on the corresponding data objects. (col 6, ln 25-36: the metric data 18 may be used in one or more methods to calculate the expected recovery metrics that may be achieved for a given asset or assets, and the recovery metrics may be compared to the recovery targets (e.g. to determine if SLAs can be expected to be met). In other cases, the recovery manager 16 may use the metric data 18 to calculate recovery metrics, and may provide the user with information regarding the recovery metrics, the corresponding recovery targets, and the corresponding recovery objectives; information assets; RPO)
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the portion or all of the CNS corresponds to one or more applications of the CNS and their corresponding data objects, wherein the processor is further programmed to identify the plurality of data objects based on the corresponding data objects. (information assets; RPO)
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the portion or all of the CNS corresponds to one or more Lines of Business (LOBs) of the CNS and their corresponding data objects, wherein the processor is further programmed to identify the plurality of data objects based on the corresponding data objects. (information assets; RPO)
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the CNS is recovered by a recovery system and the recovery pattern is based on capabilities of the recovery system. (col 4, ln 35-40: Metrics corresponding to the environment may include the network activity/bandwidth at the time of the data protection operation, resource utilization, etc)
22. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to:
automatically select, based on availability of data associated with corresponding validation methods (fig 4), one of a plurality of validation methods comprising: a method using statistical metric data (fig 3), a method using testing or simulation data, or a method using actual recovery execution data; and (col 9, ln 60-63: the estimated recovery time of FIG. 3, in the context of FIG. 4, may be the estimated recovery time metric for the asset, using the recovery method specified for recovery validation.)
compute the recovery prediction based on the selected validation method. (fig 3)
23. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further programmed to:
detect current hardware, software, and/or network conditions of the CNS; (col 8, ln 14-28)
compare the detected conditions to stored historical metric entries; (col 8, ln 14-28)
select a subset of the entries having similar conditions; and (col 8, ln 14-28)
adjust the recovery time estimate based on differences between the selected entries and the detected conditions. (col 8, ln 14-28)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected as being the medium implemented by the system of claim(s) 1, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
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 of this title, 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) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel et al. (US8261122B1) in view of BOBAK et al. (US20090172461A1).
Kappel discloses:
5. The system of claim 1,
However, Kappel does not explicitly disclose, while BOBAK teaches:
wherein the request further comprises priority information that specifies an order in which recovery is to proceed, wherein recovery of the plurality of data objects is ordered based on the priority information. (par 45: 25-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine recovery time of Kappel with recovery time of BOBAK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid little predictability as to whether the desired recovery objective will be achieved, prior to time of failure. (BOBAK: par 6)
Kappel discloses:
12. The system of claim 11,
However, Kappel does not explicitly disclose, while BOBAK teaches:
wherein the recovery system is associated with different sets of vendor devices that recover the CNS, and wherein the recovery pattern comprises a plurality of recovery patterns that each correspond to a respective set of vendor devices. (par 29: 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine recovery time of Kappel with recovery time of BOBAK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid little predictability as to whether the desired recovery objective will be achieved, prior to time of failure. (BOBAK: par 6)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected as being the medium implemented by the system of claim(s) 5, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel et al. (US8261122B1) in view of Cherkasova et al. (DP+IP = Design of Efficient Backup Scheduling).
Kappel discloses:
6. The system of claim 1,
However, Kappel does not explicitly disclose, while Cherkasova teaches:
wherein the request further comprises a parameter that imposes a restriction on a capacity to perform recovery, and wherein the processor is further programmed to reduce the number of streams and/or the recovery speed based on the parameter. (p 1, I: Reliable and efficient backup/recovery processing remains a primary pain point for most storage organizations; p 3: the total “width” of these jobs cannot exceed the capacity of the tape drive maxTput.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine recovery time of Kappel with efficient recovery of Cherkasova. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to resolve increased backup/recovery time. (Cherkasova: p 1)
Kappel discloses:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the request further comprises a recovery requirement that specifies a preferred recovery condition, and wherein the processor is further programmed to:
However, Kappel does not explicitly disclose, while Cherkasova teaches:
iteratively execute the bin packing model using different combinations of available streams and/or recovery speeds to meet the preferred recovery condition. (p 6: The demonstrated bin-packing schedule results are for a single tape drive model which has been formulated in a significantly more compact and efficient way compared to a multi-tape drive IP formulation; Table I)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine recovery time of Kappel with efficient recovery of Cherkasova. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to resolve increased backup/recovery time. (Cherkasova: p 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection for independent claim(s) 20.
Claim(s) 2-4, 13, 15-17 is/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.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 103, the Remarks state, “However, this passage of Kappel merely describes using network stream bandwidth as a way to simulate computer recovery. Even if this passage describes a metric (bandwidth usage) as a way to gauge recovery, this does not disclose how to use that metric, and in particular does not disclose the specific use in the bin packing model to "simulate recovery of the plurality of data objects based on use of one or more streams that are initially available, become unavailable while the one or more streams are used to simulate recovery of one or more data objects, become available again after the one or more data objects are simulated to be recovered, and recovery of additional ones of the plurality of data objects as the one or more streams become available."” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Kappel discloses, in col 4, ln 35-40, “Metrics corresponding to the environment may include the network activity/bandwidth at the time of the data protection operation, resource utilization, etc.” Par 54 of the Spec states, “A stream may be determined to become available based on the recovery speed of the stream and a size of a data object recovered by the stream.” Thus, network/stream bandwidth depends on resource utilization. Kappel further discloses, in col 10, ln 5-15, “If this method is selected, the recovery manager 16 may perform the trial runs/simulations to collect the statistical data, and may estimate the recovery metrics using the statistical data. For example, the testing may include testing various aspects of the recovery (e.g. verifying the media on which an asset copy is stored, verifying the data integrity of the asset, verifying data path connectivity to the asset copy, and/or verifying the data path performance). Measuring metrics for these aspects provides data that may be used to formulate a recovery metric estimate.” In other words, metrics including the network activity/bandwidth formulate a recovery estimate based on available bandwidth at the time of resource utilization. A bandwidth capacity for the recovery is consumed (used) during active operations and becomes available again for other tasks after the operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113