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 Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: typo in limitation "a method executed by at least one process". Appropriate correction is required. The specification describes methods being executed by a processor, not a process. Although one of ordinary skill would understand that a process is typically executed by a processor, making the current claim language almost functionally the same, it would be clearer and also more in line with the specification if claim 10 was changed from “a method executed by at least one process” to “a method executed by at least one processor”. For purposes of examination claim 10 will be interpreted as “a method executed by at least one processor”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, limitation
“DR operation phase determination processing to calculate an operation phase … using:
a first target …,
a second target business use volume used in a target business
the copy configuration information,”.
First issue, It is unclear how limitation “the copy configuration information” is used in the DR operation phase determination. Examiner suspects that the phrase “based on” was replaced with a line break and that these two separate lines should actually be one line reading “a second target business use volume used in a target business based on the copy configuration information”. Second issue, the end of “the copy configuration information,” is a comma, which would indicate that there is more to be included in the DR operation phase determination, for example “a third target business use volume…”, but the next limitation “support pattern calculation processing” is indented one level up, and also describes a different processing step, which causes confusion as there is no more DR operation phase determination parts. Examiner suggests changing the last comma of the “DR operation determination processing … using:” list from a comma(which denotes a next element), to a semicolon to denote the end of the list. For the purposes of examination, limitation “a second target business use volume used in a target business the copy configuration information,” in claim 1 will be interpreted as “a second target business use volume used in a target business based on the copy configuration information;”
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 1,3-5,7-8,10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1,3-5,7-8 recite a method, and claims 10-18 also recite a method, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
For step 2A eligibility prong one(does the claim recite a judicial exception?), the claim(s) recite(s) “generating and determining costs and volume information”(this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “DR operation phase determination processing to calculate an operation phase of an operation of a cloud DR copy volume of a cloud site using: a first target business use volume based on information of a copy volume, a second target business use volume used in a target business based on the copy configuration information;” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “support pattern calculation processing to calculate a disaster pattern in a first volume of a disaster target in accordance with the operation phase and” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “calculating a set of volume copies of the first volume of the disaster target comprising a first copy volume storing recovery data and the first volume to support the disaster pattern,” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “disaster support cost calculation processing comprising: calculating a sum of an operation fee of the DR site during a recovery time and a data reading cost for reading the cloud DR copy volume; calculating, using the cloud cost information and the sum, a use fee of the DR site from an occurrence of a failure in the disaster pattern to completion of system recovery of a use site where a use volume is created,” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the process of adding component costs together to get a total disaster support cost is also considered a mathematical calculation [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) 1. “Mathematical concepts”]). As claimed, this process can practically be performed either in the human mind or using a computer as a tool.
Even if the limitations require a computer, it can still be a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. "A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process"]. Determining the DR operation phase, determining what steps are needed for the disaster recovery plan(disaster pattern), and calculating the cost to implement the disaster recovery plan are directed to mental processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
For step 2A eligibility prong two(does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?), This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “copy configuration information storing, in association with each other: business specifying information of a use volume used in business, and information of a copy volume constituting a pair of a use volume and a backup or DR” (necessary data gathering and storage), “cloud cost information storing, in association with each other: a DR site in a cloud environment, and information regarding a cost required for using a volume of the DR site in the cloud environment” (necessary data gathering and storage), and “outputting the use fee of the DR site as the disaster support cost calculation.” (presenting results) are insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, data sending, and presentation[see MPEP 2106.05(g) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.]
The additional computer parts(“executed in a data management apparatus”, storage device, copy volume, use volume, backup or DR(volume), DR site in a cloud environment, volume of the DR site in the cloud environment, processor) are generic components recited at a high level of generality[see MPEP 2106.05(b) “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”]. As a whole, the claims are directed to several abstract mental processes implemented on a generic computer, but are not integrated into a practical application[see MPEP 2106.05(f) “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two”].
As a whole, the claim’s storage of business specifying information tying use volumes, backup volumes, copy volume plans, and associated costs to implement the plans, as well as the outputting of results, do not go beyond what is required for the judicial exception to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations are specified at a high level of generality, and does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims generally link the abstract idea to the field of cloud computing cost estimates. These limitations do not go beyond what is required by the judicial exception limitations(collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to target business operations), and could apply to any target business using any type of use volume and backup volume. [See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two” and also MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment”]
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
For step 2B eligibility (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements are either gathering/storing data(“copy configuration information storing, in association with each other: business specifying information of a use volume used in business, and information of a copy volume constituting a pair of a use volume and a backup or DR”, “cloud cost information storing, in association with each other: a DR site in a cloud environment, and information regarding a cost required for using a volume of the DR site in the cloud environment”), presenting data(“outputting the use fee of the DR site as the disaster support cost calculation”), or are additional computer parts that are well known components recited at a high level of generality(“executed in a data management apparatus”, storage device, copy volume, use volume, backup or DR(volume), DR site in a cloud environment, volume of the DR site in the cloud environment, processor).
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because these limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output) [see MPEP 2106.05(g) “(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. “, “(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).”, “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”]
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are also well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions, recited at a high level of generality functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). NPL reference “AWS elastic disaster recovery pricing”(Dec 2022) describes this well (Page 1 “AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery (AWS DRS) has simple, predictable, usage-based pricing. With AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, you pay only for the servers you are actively replicating to AWS. Your costs are based on a flat per hour fee. There are no resources to manage, no upfront costs, and no minimum fee. This gives you the flexibility to easily use our recovery solution by paying on an hourly basis, rather than committing to a long-term contract or set number of servers. Pricing includes continuous data replication, test launches, recovery launches, and point-in-time recovery. Additional charges Replicating your source servers to AWS using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery consumes additional resources on your AWS account, mostly storage (Amazon EBS), and compute (Amazon EC2). These are consumed during ongoing data replication, and when you launch drill or recovery instances. Charges for each service are billed to your AWS account according to your pricing plan. If you are using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for production workloads, AWS Business or Enterprise Support is recommended.”). The process of pricing for disaster recovery failover to a cloud service, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional process. Automating a mental process and adding well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality does not qualify as “significantly more” [see MPEP 2106.05 “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));”].
The claim’s “executed in a data management apparatus”, storage device, copy volume, use volume, backup or DR(volume), DR site in a cloud environment, volume of the DR site in the cloud environment, processor, generally link the abstract idea to the field of cloud computing cost estimates. These limitations do not go beyond what is required by the judicial exception limitations(collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to target business operations), and could apply to any target business using any type of use volume and backup volume. [See MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment”]
Combined and considered as a whole, the claim describes a method that estimates the cost of a disaster recovery operation from a cloud platform. The claim as a whole takes the judicial exception and only adds data gathering/storing/presenting steps[MPEP 2106.05(g)], which are conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)], and generic [MPEP 2106.05(h)], and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. [see MPEP 2106.05].
Conclusion: In light of the above, the limitations in claim 1 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
As for the limitations recited in claims 3-5,7-8, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2 Analysis
Regarding claim 10,
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
For step 2A eligibility prong one(does the claim recite a judicial exception?), the claim(s) recite(s) “generating and determining costs and volume information”(this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “determining recovery time objective for a system of the target business;” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “execute loop processing for the one or more abnormal records: determine status of loop volume for the target business, determine status of local backup volume for the target business,” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “generate a record comprising a name of the target business, the data pair, a copy name, and an operation time of a disaster recovery site” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]), “executing the in-operation disaster support cost calculation using the disaster support cost table and a value for an operation for the target business.” (this is a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. “mental processes”]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the process of adding component costs together to get a total disaster support cost is also considered a mathematical calculation [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) 1. “Mathematical concepts”]). As claimed, this process can practically be performed either in the human mind or using a computer as a tool.
Even if the limitations require a computer, it can still be a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. "A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process"]. Determining recovery time objective, going through a list of abnormal records one at a time, determining the status of target volumes and local backup volumes, generating a record comprising a name, the data pair, a copy name, and an operation time, and calculating the cost using the support cost table and the target business status, are directed to mental processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
For step 2A eligibility prong two(does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?), This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “acquiring one or more abnormal records comprising affected volume information for a target business;” (necessary data gathering and storage), “acquire a data pair of disaster pattern identification and recovery pattern identification,” (necessary data gathering and storage), and “store the record in a disaster support cost table; adding recovery copy pattern identification to the disaster support cost table;” ( data storage and presenting results) are insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, data sending, and presentation[see MPEP 2106.05(g) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.]
The additional computer parts(processor, disaster support cost table) are generic components recited at a high level of generality[see MPEP 2106.05(b) “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”]. As a whole, the claims are directed to several abstract mental processes implemented on a generic computer, but are not integrated into a practical application[see MPEP 2106.05(f) “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two”].
As a whole, the claim’s processor, acquiring abnormal records, acquiring data pair of disaster pattern identification and recovery pattern identification, recovery copy pattern identification, and storage of records in a disaster support cost table, do not go beyond what is required for the judicial exception to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations are specified at a high level of generality, and does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims generally link the abstract idea to the field of cloud computing cost estimates. These limitations do not go beyond what is required by the judicial exception limitations(collecting information, analyzing it, and storing certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to target business operations), and could apply to any target business using any type of use volume and backup volume. [See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two” and also MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment”]
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
For step 2B eligibility (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements are either gathering, storing, or presenting data(“acquiring one or more abnormal records comprising affected volume information for a target business;” (necessary data gathering and storage), “acquire a data pair of disaster pattern identification and recovery pattern identification,” (necessary data gathering and storage), and “store the record in a disaster support cost table; adding recovery copy pattern identification to the disaster support cost table;” ( data storage and presenting results)), or are additional computer parts that are well known components recited at a high level of generality(processor, disaster support cost table).
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because these limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output) [see MPEP 2106.05(g) “(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. “, “(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).”, “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”]
These data gathering/storing/presenting limitations are also well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions, recited at a high level of generality functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). NPL reference “AWS elastic disaster recovery pricing”(Dec 2022) describes this well (Page 1 “AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery (AWS DRS) has simple, predictable, usage-based pricing. With AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, you pay only for the servers you are actively replicating to AWS. Your costs are based on a flat per hour fee. There are no resources to manage, no upfront costs, and no minimum fee. This gives you the flexibility to easily use our recovery solution by paying on an hourly basis, rather than committing to a long-term contract or set number of servers. Pricing includes continuous data replication, test launches, recovery launches, and point-in-time recovery. Additional charges Replicating your source servers to AWS using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery consumes additional resources on your AWS account, mostly storage (Amazon EBS), and compute (Amazon EC2). These are consumed during ongoing data replication, and when you launch drill or recovery instances. Charges for each service are billed to your AWS account according to your pricing plan. If you are using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for production workloads, AWS Business or Enterprise Support is recommended.”). The process of pricing for disaster recovery failover to a cloud service, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional process. Automating a mental process and adding well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality does not qualify as “significantly more” [see MPEP 2106.05 “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));”].
The claim’s acquiring abnormal records, acquiring a data pair of disaster pattern identification, and recovery pattern identification, and storing information into the disaster support cost table, generally link the abstract idea to the general field of cloud computing cost estimates. These limitations do not go beyond what is required by the judicial exception limitations(collecting information, analyzing it, and storing certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to target business operations), and could apply to any target business using any type of use volume and backup volume. [See MPEP 2106.05(h) “Field of Use and Technological Environment”]
Combined and considered as a whole, the claim describes a method that estimates the cost of a disaster recovery operation from a cloud platform. The claim as a whole takes the judicial exception and only adds data gathering/storing/presenting steps[MPEP 2106.05(g)], which are conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)], and generic [MPEP 2106.05(h)], and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. [see MPEP 2106.05].
Conclusion: In light of the above, the limitations in claim 10 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible.
As for the limitations recited in claims 11-18, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3-5,7-8,10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160048408 A1 (Madhu) in view of US 20100332479 A1 (Prahlad).
Regarding claim 1, Madhu teaches,
A disaster recovery (DR) cost calculation support method(par 227 “For example, this would allow the flexibility of having an AWS-focused planner that considers EC2 costs,”; Par 104 "Further, the user interface may enable automated disaster recovery testing, alerting and reporting of disaster recovery events, and provide cost and projected cost reporting.") executed in a data management apparatus that improves a disaster support cost calculation by generating and determining costs and volume information (fig 16; par 117 “FIG. 16 illustrates another embodiment of a hybrid data center 1600 that includes a hybrid cloud management platform, such as embodied as a software virtual appliance or set of virtual machines, designated as OCVMs 1604 (One Cloud virtual machines). The platform acts to seamlessly bridge various enterprise data center components 2104 (such as physical, virtual, and cloud data center components) to cloud computing infrastructure 2108, to address the business use case of disaster recovery/business continuity for the enterprise.”), wherein the data management apparatus comprises:
a storage device storing at least:
copy configuration information (fig 8:812,814,816; par 71 “At step 812, a dependency graph is generated which links together the discovered assets. At step 814, a blueprint is generated or updated by a blueprint generator that processes the graph and transforms it to a generic format. At step 816, the generated output of the graph is stored in a database. This database is accessible by a recovery service.”) storing, in association with each other:
business specifying information of a use volume used in business(par 119 “As mentioned, disaster recovery (DR) describes a strategy and process where businesses operating a primary data center replicate some or all of their critical applications for the purposes of business continuity after a full or partial failure. As used herein, disaster recovery encompasses more than just backup because it also entails meeting the service level agreements with respect to recovery of applications. Many times, businesses, for compliance purposes or operational agility, have one or more DR sites that are managed by them or by an IT (information technology) department or a third-party managed service provider (MSP). Such organizations that perform DR functions typically have associated business SLAs to meet for application availability.”; par 71 “The metadata service processes the inventory and collects all required information about the assets, such as networking requirements, compute requirements, and storage requirements. For example, networking information may include number of networking interfaces, IP addresses, virtual switches that are part of the network, and the like. …. Storage information may include number and size of disks connected to the virtual or physical machines, etc.”), and
information of a copy volume constituting a pair of a use volume and a backup or DR(par 72 “At step 904, the protection service consults the assets database for the assets to be protected and looks to the policy database for the parameters for protections. For example, the policy database may include RPO (recovery point objective), RTO (recovery time objective), or SLA (service level agreement), which may relate to how often the asset needs to be protected, and how recovery of an asset from the cloud is to occur. The recovery service does the same. At step 906, a job is created based on the policy attributes, and this job is published (queued) to a persistent jobs queue.”), and
cloud cost information storing, in association with each other:
a DR site in a cloud environment(par 104 “user is allowed to set policy with respect to management of an enterprise data center, obtain on-demand provisioning of cloud compute and storage resources”; par 48 “Storage tiering may relate to moving data into different tiers of cloud storage depending on various factors, such as cost, extent of protection, availability, and the like.”), and
information regarding a cost required for using a volume of the DR site in the cloud environment(par 104 “FIGS. 11-14 illustrate respective exemplary screens 1100, 1200, 1300, and 1400 … wherein a user is allowed to set policy with respect to management of an enterprise data center, obtain on-demand provisioning of cloud compute and storage resources, and obtain policy based cost appropriate use of cloud storage tiers. Further, the user interface may enable automated disaster recovery testing, alerting and reporting of disaster recovery events, and provide cost and projected cost reporting.”; par 48 “Storage tiering may relate to moving data into different tiers of cloud storage depending on various factors, such as cost, extent of protection, availability, and the like.”), and
a processor executing, upon acquiring target business specifying information for specifying a target business(par 119 “As mentioned, disaster recovery (DR) describes a strategy and process where businesses operating a primary data center replicate some or all of their critical applications for the purposes of business continuity after a full or partial failure. As used herein, disaster recovery encompasses more than just backup because it also entails meeting the service level agreements with respect to recovery of applications. Many times, businesses, for compliance purposes or operational agility, have one or more DR sites that are managed by them or by an IT (information technology) department or a third-party managed service provider (MSP). Such organizations that perform DR functions typically have associated business SLAs to meet for application availability.”), the method comprising:
DR operation phase determination processing to calculate an operation phase of an operation of a cloud DR copy volume of a cloud site(fig 31; par 155,75,56) using:
a first target business use volume based on information of a copy volume, (fig 31; par 155 “FIG. 31 illustrates various states/elements of a data movement engine, which may include protect state 3104, ingest state 3108, clean secondary state 3116, and clean primary state 3112….”; par 75 “…communication of status and progress may be handled by a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) module, …. A control plane may subscribe to this topic to learn of the details about the job state, and interpret this detail and publish a periodic summary that is consumed by clients….; par 56 “The hybrid cloud management platform may perform scheduled snapshots and replication to keep data up to date in the cloud computing environment, and may monitor the enterprise data center environment to failover to the cloud computing environment on-demand or automatically.”)
a second target business use volume used in a target business based on the copy configuration information; (fig 31; par 155 “FIG. 31 illustrates various states/elements of a data movement engine, which may include protect state 3104, ingest state 3108, clean secondary state 3116, and clean primary state 3112….”; par 75 “…communication of status and progress may be handled by a publish-subscribe (pub-sub) module, …. A control plane may subscribe to this topic to learn of the details about the job state, and interpret this detail and publish a periodic summary that is consumed by clients….; par 56 “The hybrid cloud management platform may perform scheduled snapshots and replication to keep data up to date in the cloud computing environment, and may monitor the enterprise data center environment to failover to the cloud computing environment on-demand or automatically.”)
support pattern calculation processing to calculate a disaster pattern in a first volume of a disaster target in accordance with the operation phase(fig 6:620; par 68 “The platform continuously monitors the health of the enterprise data center and replicas in the cloud through such non-disruptive testing. Next, at a step 620, the platform continuously monitors the data center and failover is enabled when conditions are met, such as on-demand and/or automatically according to policy.”;) and
calculating a set of volume copies of the first volume of the disaster target comprising a first copy volume storing recovery data and the first volume to support the disaster pattern,( par 56 “The hybrid cloud management platform may perform scheduled snapshots and replication to keep data up to date in the cloud computing environment, and may monitor the enterprise data center environment to failover to the cloud computing environment on-demand or automatically.”) and
disaster support cost calculation processing comprising:
calculating a sum of an operation fee of the DR site during a recovery time(par 227 “FIG. 44 is an example class diagram for the planner 4306 and schedulers 4308. One embodiment may feature a simple planner, and another may provide a drop-in replacement that considers additional restrictions and does not require any external interface changes. Additionally, … different planners may be provided for different environments. For example, this would allow the flexibility of having an AWS-focused planner that considers EC2 costs,… ”; par 77 “The protection service is responsible for orchestrating the workers and ensuring that jobs are successfully completed within an enterprise expected time window.”) and a data reading repository rehydration action for reading the cloud DR copy volume; (par 133 “At an ingest-phase, on a calculated schedule (such as based on cost optimization in AWS), an EC2 instance is powered-on to read the data from S3 and hydrate a repository, such as an EBS volume.”; par 51 “An exemplary DRaaS implementation may provide for the automatic discovery of assets of an enterprise data center, automated monitoring and management, cost information and analytics, a simple policy engine, protection groups, bandwidth throttling, cost engineered provisioning of cloud resources, and management including change block tracking and data reduction of virtual machines.”)
calculating, using the cloud cost information and the sum, a use fee of the DR site (par 227 “FIG. 44 is an example class diagram for the planner 4306 and schedulers 4308. One embodiment may feature a simple planner, and another may provide a drop-in replacement that considers additional restrictions and does not require any external interface changes. Additionally, … different planners may be provided for different environments. For example, this would allow the flexibility of having an AWS-focused planner that considers EC2 costs,… ”) from an occurrence of a failure in the disaster pattern to completion of system recovery of a use site where a use volume is created(par 104 “FIGS. 11-14 illustrate respective exemplary screens 1100, 1200, 1300, and 1400 …wherein a user is allowed to set policy with respect to management of an enterprise data center, obtain on-demand provisioning of cloud compute and storage resources, and obtain policy based cost appropriate use of cloud storage tiers. Further, the user interface may enable automated disaster recovery testing, alerting and reporting of disaster recovery events, and provide cost and projected cost reporting.”;), and
outputting the use fee of the DR site as the disaster support cost calculation. (par 104 “FIGS. 11-14 illustrate respective exemplary screens 1100, 1200, 1300, and 1400 …wherein a user is allowed to set policy with respect to management of an enterprise data center, obtain on-demand provisioning of cloud compute and storage resources, and obtain policy based cost appropriate use of cloud storage tiers. Further, the user interface may enable automated disaster recovery testing, alerting and reporting of disaster recovery events, and provide cost and projected cost reporting.”;)
However, Madhu does not specifically teach calculating … a data reading cost for reading the cloud DR copy volume.
On the other hand, Prahlad teaches,
A disaster recovery (DR) cost calculation support method executed in a data management apparatus that improves a disaster support cost calculation by generating and determining costs and volume information(par 51 “Methods are disclosed for identifying suitable storage locations, including suitable cloud storage sites, for data files subject to a storage policy. Further, systems and methods for providing a cloud gateway and a scalable data object store within a cloud environment are disclosed.”; par 74 “In some implementations, a storage policy may comprise a cost policy. A cost policy is a set of preferences, priorities, rules and/or criteria that specify how to identify suitable storage locations, including suitable cloud storage locations. For example, a cost policy may describe the method of evaluating a cost function, as described in greater detail herein with respect to FIG. 27.”), wherein the data management apparatus comprises:
a storage device storing(fig 2:211:Management Index; par 244 “… the storage policy stored in management index 211 may specify ….”) at least:
copy configuration information storing, in association with each other:
business specifying information of a use volume used in business(par 373 “The process 2700 begins at block 2705 when the system accesses the storage policy applicable to the set of data objects.”), and
information of a copy volume constituting a pair of a use volume and a backup or DR(par 421 “The systems herein permit policy-driven storage that defines what data stays on-premise and what moves to the cloud. Storage policies may consider "data value" determined from factors such as (a) access requirements, (b) latency requirements, and ( c) corporate requirements including: …, how quickly will the data need to be restored, what downstream applications/processing are dependent on the data, ….”), and
cloud cost information storing, in association with each other:
a DR site in a cloud environment(par 389 “The cost function(s) and their associations with particular groups or storage media types may be defined in the storage policy or elsewhere.”), and
information regarding a cost required for using a volume of the DR site in the cloud environment(fig 27:2730; par 381 “At block 2730, the system may evaluate the cost of storing the group of data objects on some or all of the storage device candidates (the "storage cost"). The storage cost associated with a particular storage device may refer simply to the estimated monetary expense associated with uploading the group of data objects to the storage device and/ or maintaining it there for its estimated lifetime ( or other time period).”; par 389 “The cost function(s) and their associations with particular groups or storage media types may be defined in the storage policy or elsewhere.”), and
a processor executing, upon acquiring target business specifying information for specifying a target business(par 66 “In one example, storage operations may be performed according to various storage preferences, for example, as expressed by a user preference or a storage policy. A "storage policy" is generally a data structure or other information source that includes a set of preferences and other storage criteria associated with performing a storage operation.”), the method comprising:
DR operation phase determination processing to calculate an operation phase of an operation of a cloud DR copy volume of a cloud site(par 88 “Storage manager 105 may include a jobs agent 220 that monitors the status of some or all storage operations previously performed, currently being performed, or scheduled to be performed by storage operation cell 150, including storage jobs sent to cloud-based storage.”) using:
a first target business use volume based on information of a copy volume(par 65 “Additional data storage operations performed by storage operation cells 150 may include creating, storing, retrieving, and migrating primary storage data (e.g., data store 260) …”),
a second target business use volume used in a target business based on the copy configuration information,( par 65 “Additional data storage operations performed by storage operation cells 150 may include creating, storing, retrieving, and migrating primary storage data (e.g., data store 260) and secondary storage data (which may include, for example, snapshot copies, backup copies, Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM) copies, archive copies, and other types of copies of electronic data) stored on storage devices 115.”)
calculating a set of volume copies of the first volume of the disaster target comprising a first copy volume storing recovery data and the first volume to support the disaster pattern,(par 66 “For example, a storage policy may indicate that certain data is to be stored in the storage device 115, retained for a specified period of time before being aged to another tier of secondary storage, copied to the storage device 115 using a specified number of data streams, etc. As one example, a storage policy may specify that certain data should be stored in one or more target cloud storage sites 115A-N, as described herein.”) and
disaster support cost calculation processing comprising:
calculating a sum of an operation fee of the DR site during a recovery time(par 67 “…a storage policy may specify that a first type of files (e.g., secondary disk copies needed for rapid disaster recovery) be stored only in storage sites 115, including cloud storage sites 115A-N, that can provide sufficient bandwidth, network capacity or other performance to ensure that the time needed to recover a file from the storage device 115 (e.g., cloud storage site 115A-N) is less a specified recovery time objective.”) and a data reading cost for reading the cloud DR copy volume;(par 66 “The preferences and storage criteria may include, but are not limited to, a storage location ( or a class or quality of storage location), … retention policies, …, the estimated or historic usage or cost associated with operating system components, …. various time-related factors, … and other criteria relating to a data storage or management operation.”; par 74; par 108 “…, the system may calculate data costing information and other information including information associated with the cost of storing data and data availability associated with storage operation cells, ….”; par 381 “At block 2730, the system may evaluate the cost of storing the group of data objects on some or all of the storage device candidates (the "storage cost"). The storage cost associated with a particular storage device may refer simply to the estimated monetary expense associated with uploading the group of data objects to the storage device and/or maintaining it there for its estimated lifetime ( or other time period).”; par 382 “Alternatively or additionally, the "storage cost" of a certain storage device candidate may refer more generally to the value of a numerical cost function that may take into account several variables. Non-exclusive examples of cost function variables include: historical or projected information pertaining to storage device candidates; any quoted pricing rates, … the network load associated with uploading and/or downloading the data to a site; projected data access costs; … or similar performance and cost metrics.”; par 420 “This not only impacts the ongoing service charges, which are often priced on a per-GB basis but also impacts the ability to meet backup windows over limited bandwidth.”)
calculating, using the cloud cost information and the sum, a use fee of the DR site when needed of a use site where a use volume is created,(par 378 “Alternatively or additionally, the system may estimate the storage costs for a candidate cloud storage site by accessing historical, projected or other cost information stored within the storage manager 105 or elsewhere in the storage operation cell 150.”) and
outputting the use fee of the DR site as the disaster support cost calculation.(fig 27:2735; par 390 “Depending on the results of these determinations, the system may repeat some or all of blocks 2710-2735 using different quote parameters, different groupings, and/or different cost functions and/or may take other actions such as notifying an administrator.”)
Regarding claim