DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/335794 filed on June 18, 2025 in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 10, 15 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) and further in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657).
Claim 1, Chandreshekar teaches a method of providing access to data of a data center (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5; access datacenter), the method comprising: storing a unit of data to each of a plurality of data nodes of a data center (View Chandreshekar ¶ 3, 28; data stored); designating a first node of the data center as a primary access node for the unit of data, the primary access node being configured to service access requests to the unit of data using one or more of the plurality of data nodes (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 29, 35; primary datacenter); wherein the secondary access node acts as a backup access node in case the primary access node is unavailable (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5; shift performance of tasks); after designating the second node of the data center as the secondary access node, determining that the first node is not available (View Chandreshekar ¶ 29, 58; failure scenario, secondary servers may be converted to primary servers, direct traffic to secondary data center in the event the primary datacenter fails); performing a failover process by reconfiguring a second node of the data center as the primary access node for the unit of data (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 56; failover operation to secondary datacenter); wherein the reconfigured second node can service access requests without relocating data (Chandreshekar ¶ 56; secondary database may become read/write with the formerly primary database, primary database switched to mirror the secondary database).
Chandreshekar does not explicitly teach designating a second node of the data center as a secondary access node for the unit of data; and designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node; and performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data.
However, Helmick teaches designating a second node of the data center as a secondary access node for the unit of data (View Helmick, Col. 1, Line 57 – Col. 2, Line 6; one or more slave data stores designated as new master, failover); and designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node (View Helmick Col. 2, Lines 7-17; Col. 4, Lines 60-67; any slave node can act as master); performing a second failover process (View Helmick Col. 2, Lines 7-17; newly elected master); designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node (View Helmick Col. 3, Lines 28-46; Col. 5, Line 60 – Col. 6, Line 6; elect new master node, new master node candidate determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chandreshekar with designating a second node of the data center as a secondary access node for the unit of data; and designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node performing a second failover process; designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node since it is known in the art that a backup storage node can be used (View Hemlick Col. 1, Line 57 – Col. 2, Line 17). Such modification would have allowed a storage node to failover.
Chandreshekar and Hemlick do not explicitly teach performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data.
However, Sugiura teaches performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data (View Sugiura ¶ 82, 84; failback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data since it is known in the art that a datacenter node can be failed back (View Sugiura ¶ 82, 84). Such modification would have allowed a storage node to failback to being the master node.
Claim 11 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chandreshekar further teaches receiving a request from a client associated with the unit of data to access the unit of data using the primary access node (View Chandreshekar ¶ 38, 56; data exchange between controller center and clients); and after determining that the first node is not available, providing access to the client to the unit of data via the second node (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 56; failover operation to secondary datacenter).
Claim 12 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 2. Chandreshekar further teaches the request from the client to access the unit of data comprises at least one of reading, writing, or modifying the unit of data (View Chandreshekar ¶ 56; read/write).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) and further in view of Banka (US Patent Application 2016/0098331).
Claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 2.
Chandreshekar further teaches the failover process is performed by a storage service (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 56; failover operation to secondary datacenter).
Chandreshekar, Helmick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach wherein access to the unit of data via the second node is provided by a virtual storage controller unit in response to the failover process.
However, Banka teaches wherein access to the unit of data via the second node is provided by a virtual storage controller unit in response to the failover process (View Banka ¶ 19, 30; virtual storage controller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with wherein access to the unit of data via the second node is provided by a virtual storage controller unit in response to the failover process since it is known in the art that a virtual storage controller can be used (View Banka ¶ 19, 30). Such modification would have allowed virtual storage controller can be used when failing over.
Claim 13 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) and further in view of Yamagami (US Patent 6,836,830).
Claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chandreshekar, Helmick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach the failover process is performed without copying the unit of data when the plurality of data nodes is available.
However, Yamagami teaches the failover process is performed without copying the unit of data when the plurality of data nodes is available (View Yamagami Col. 7, Lines 44-54; backup process without copying data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with the failover process is performed without copying the unit of data when the plurality of data nodes is available since it is known in the art that data is not copied (View Yamagami Col. 7, Lines 44-54). Such modification would have allowed a storage node to failover without copying the data.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) and further in view of Dings (US Patent Application 2021/0279145).
Claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chandreshekar, Helmick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach determining that at least one data node of the plurality of data nodes is unavailable, wherein the at least one data node is below a predetermined number; and performing a rebuild of the at least one data node that is unavailable during the performing of the failover process.
However, Dings teaches determining that at least one data node of the plurality of data nodes is unavailable, wherein the at least one data node is below a predetermined number (View Dings ¶ 16, 17; computer node unavailable); and performing a rebuild of the at least one data node that is unavailable during the performing of the failover process (View Dings ¶ 78, 79; rebuild node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with determining that at least one data node of the plurality of data nodes is unavailable, wherein the at least one data node is below a predetermined number; and performing a rebuild of the at least one data node that is unavailable during the performing of the failover process since it is known in the art that a storage node can be rebuilt (View Dings ¶ 78, 79). Such modification would have allowed a storage node to be rebuilt after being unavailable.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) and further in view of Ramasubramaniam (US Patent Application 2016/0085647).
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chandreshekar, Helmick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach performing the failover process further comprises: determining that a first candidate node is not available; and reconfiguring a second candidate node as the primary access node, wherein the second candidate node is the second node.
However, Ramasubramaniam teaches performing the failover process further comprises: determining that a first candidate node is not available (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 64; unavailable candidate node); and reconfiguring a second candidate node as the primary access node, wherein the second candidate node is the second node (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 64; identify alternate node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with performing the failover process further comprises: determining that a first candidate node is not available; and reconfiguring a second candidate node as the primary access node, wherein the second candidate node is the second node process since it is known in the art that a second storage node can be used (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 64). Such modification would have allowed an alternate storage node to be used.
Claim 14 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) in view of Dings (US Patent Application 2021/0279145) and further in view of Coatney (US Patent 8,327,186).
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chandreshekar, Helmick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach determining that a data node of the plurality of data nodes is unavailable; configuring an additional node of the data center, separate from the plurality of data nodes, as a data node for the unit of data; and copying at least a portion of the unit of data to the additional node.
However, Dings teaches determining that a data node of the plurality of data nodes is unavailable (View Dings ¶ 16, 17; computer node unavailable); and copying at least a portion of the unit of data to the additional node (View Dings ¶ 22; backup copy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with determining that a data node of the plurality of data nodes is unavailable; and copying at least a portion of the unit of data to the additional node since it is known in the art that data can be copied to a storage node (View Dings ¶ 22). Such modification would have allowed data to be copied to an additional storage node.
Chandreshekar, Helmick, Sugiura and Dings do not explicitly teach configuring an additional node of the data center, separate from the plurality of data nodes, as a data node for the unit of data.
However, Coatney teaches configuring an additional node of the data center, separate from the plurality of data nodes, as a data node for the unit of data (View Coatney Col. 2, Lines 38-61; remote node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with configuring an additional node of the data center, separate from the plurality of data nodes, as a data node for the unit of data since it is known in the art that an additional storage node can be remote (View Coatney Col. 2, Lines 38-61). Such modification would have allowed data to be copied to a remote storage node.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) and further in view of Nakamura (US Patent Application 2004/0205377).
Claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Chandreshekar, Helmick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach monitoring a periodic signal from the primary access node, wherein determining that the primary access node is not available comprises determining that the periodic signal has not been received from the primary access node.
However, Nakamura teaches monitoring a periodic signal from the primary access node, wherein determining that the primary access node is not available comprises determining that the periodic signal has not been received from the primary access node (View Nakamura ¶ 67; ping signal at periodic intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with monitoring a periodic signal from the primary access node, wherein determining that the primary access node is not available comprises determining that the periodic signal has not been received from the primary access node since it is known in the art that signals can be monitored (View Nakamura ¶ 67). Such modification would have allowed a periodic signal to be monitored for a storage node.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Coates (US Patent Application 2005/0246393) in view of Ramasubramaniam (US Patent Application 2016/0085647) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) and further in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657).
Claim 16, Chandreshekar teaches a method for providing access to data of a data center (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5; access datacenter), the method comprising: storing a unit of data to each of a plurality of data nodes of a data center (View Chandreshekar ¶ 3, 28; data stored); designating a first node of the data center as a primary access node for the unit of data, the primary access node being configured to service access requests to the unit of data using one or more of the plurality of data nodes (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 29, 35; primary datacenter); designating a second node of the data center as a secondary access node for the unit of data (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 56; secondary datacenter), wherein the secondary access node acts as a backup access node in case the primary access node is unavailable (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5; shift performance of tasks); after designating the second node of the data center as the secondary access node, determining that the first node is not available (View Chandreshekar ¶ 29, 58; failure scenario, secondary servers may be converted to primary servers, direct traffic to secondary data center in the event the primary datacenter fails); wherein the reconfigured second node can service access requests without relocating data (Chandreshekar ¶ 56; secondary database may become read/write with the formerly primary database, primary database switched to mirror the secondary database).
Chandreshekar does not explicitly teach performing a failover process by: reconfiguring the second node of the data center as the primary access node for the unit of data, and wherein reconfiguring the second node comprises: removing connections from the first node to the unit of data; establishing connections from the second node to the unit of data; and designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node; performing a second failover process; designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node; and performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access node for the unit of data.
However, Coates teaches performing a failover process by: reconfiguring the second node of the data center as the primary access node for the unit of data, and wherein reconfiguring the second node comprises: removing connections from the first node to the unit of data (View Coates ¶ 81; failover executed); establishing connections from the second node to the unit of data (View Coates ¶ 81; connection to new storage node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chandreshekar with performing a failover process by: reconfiguring the second node of the data center as the primary access node for the unit of data, and wherein reconfiguring the second node comprises: establishing connections from the second node to the unit of data since it is known in the art that a storage node can be disconnected (View Coates ¶ 81). Such modification would have allowed a new connection to be established with an available storage node.
Chandreshekar and Coates do not explicitly teach designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node; performing a second failover process; designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node; and performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data.
However, Ramasubramaniam teaches designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 6, 25, 65; identify alternate node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with designating a node different from the second node as the secondary access node since it is known in the art that a second storage node can be used (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 64). Such modification would have allowed an alternate storage node to be used.
Chandreshekar, Coates and Ramasubramaniam do not explicitly teach performing a second failover process; designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node; and performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data.
However, Helmick teaches performing a second failover process (View Helmick Col. 2, Lines 7-17; newly elected master); designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node (View Helmick Col. 3, Lines 28-46; Col. 5, Line 60 – Col. 6, Line 6; elect new master node, new master node candidate determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with designating the first node of the data center as the secondary access node since it is known in the art that a backup storage node can be used (View Hemlick Col. 1, Line 57 – Col. 2, Line 17). Such modification would have allowed a storage node to failover.
Chandreshekar, Coates, Ramasubramaniam and Hemlick do not explicitly teach performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data.
However, Sugiura teaches performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data (View Sugiura ¶ 82, 84; failback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with performing a third failover process by reconfiguring the first node of the data center as the primary access for the unit of data since it is known in the art that a datacenter node can be failed back (View Sugiura ¶ 82, 84). Such modification would have allowed a storage node to failback to being the master node.
Claim 17, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 16. Chandreshekar further teaches receiving a request from a client associated with the unit of data to access the unit of data using the primary access node (View Chandreshekar ¶ 38, 56; data exchange between controller center and clients); and after determining that the first node is not available, providing access to the client to the unit of data via the second node (View Chandreshekar ¶ 5, 56; failover operation to secondary datacenter).
Claim 18, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 16. Ramasubramaniam further teaches determining that a first candidate node is not available (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 64; unavailable candidate node); and reconfiguring a second candidate node as the primary access node, wherein the second candidate node is the second node (View Ramasubramaniam ¶ 64; identify alternate node).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandreshekar (US Patent Application 2016/0188427) in view of Coats (US Patent Application 2005/0246393) in view of Ramasubramaniam (US Patent Application 2016/0085647) in view of Helmick (US Patent 9,710,344) and further in view of Sugiura (US Patent Application 2005/0015657) and further in view of Dings (US Patent Application 2021/0279145).
Claim 19, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 16. Sugiura further teaches performing a second failover process (View Sugiura ¶ 82, 84; failback). Helmick further teaches after determining that the current primary access node is not available, performing the second failover process (View Helmick Col. 2, Lines 7-17; newly elected master).
Chandreshekar, Coates, Ramasubramaniam, Hemlick and Sugiura do not explicitly teach determining that a current primary access node is not available.
However, Dings teaches determining that a current primary access node is not available (View Dings ¶ 16, 17; computer node unavailable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of teachings with determining that a current primary access node is not available since it is known in the art that a storage node can be unavailable (View Dings ¶ 16, 17). Such modification would have allowed an unavailable storage node to be detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Bochkar et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0084142); teaches the nodes may access the access networks via a distribution switch which routes the connection from a node to the server to the appropriate access network. Typically, one of the access networks is a primary access network that is used by the distribution switch to access the MPLS network. The other access network, referred to as a secondary access network, may only be accessed if the primary access network becomes unavailable or if the condition of the primary access network deteriorates to the point that traffic to/from the nodes is adversely affected.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114