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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant' s communication filed 6/11/2026 in response to the Office action dated 1/9/2026. Claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, and 18-23 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blea et al. (US 20150363286), hereinafter Blea, in view of Ping et al. (US 10990464 B1), hereinafter Ping, and further in view of Compton et al. (US 20190250849 A1), hereinafter Compton.
Regarding claim 1, Blea teaches a method comprising: receiving a notification from each of a plurality of computing clusters through a shared storage device of a set of storage devices (Paragraph 37; Figs. 1 and 6, elements 600 and 602, failover manager 126 of hosts 100, 150 issues a trivial I/O request [notification] to the secondary storage volumes [shared storage device] shared through network 114),
the notification identifying which of a first set of target storage devices and a second set of target storage devices that a particular computing cluster of the plurality of computing clusters is capable of swapping to from a set of source storage devices (Paragraph 37, Fig. 6, elements 600 and 602, the trivial I/O request [notification] sent to the secondary storage volumes validates their availability for a failover event [swap]);
determining, based on the notification from each of the plurality of computing clusters, whether all of the plurality of computing clusters will swap from usage of the set of source storage devices to the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices during a swap event for the set of source storage devices (Paragraphs 33-35; Figs. 4-5, elements 406, 502, 506 and 512, failover manager 126 determines a target storage among a plurality of secondary storage systems 104 whose availability is tested by the notification for a failover event, redirecting [swapping] I/O requests from all hosts 100, 150 from primary storage system 102 to the target secondary storage system 104);
detecting a failure of the set of source storage devices (Paragraph 34; Fig. 5, element 500, detecting a failure of primary storage system 102);
detecting the swap event for the set of source storage devices, associated with the failure (Paragraph 35; Fig. 5, element 508, determining [detecting] whether a valid configuration exists and initiating the failover [swap event] in response); and
when all of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to using one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Paragraph 21, Fig. 1, each host 100, 150 contains a failover manager 126 to coordinate with peers a failover [switch]):
swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, all of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Paragraphs 34, 36; Fig. 5, element 522, in response to a failover [swap] event, failover manager 126 establishes new role pairs 200, redirecting I/O requests from all hosts 100, 150 from the source storage to a selected secondary [target] storage system [first set] among a plurality of secondary storage systems 104).
Blea does not explicitly teach when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices: soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters, swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, the one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices, and disabling access to storage devices that are shared between the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices; preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices, wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed, and performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices.
However, Ping teaches when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Col. 29, lines 60-67; Col. 30, lines 39-54; Fig. 6C, elements 622-634, client devices 602, 604 [computing clusters] connect to and indicate to make node 2 610 [first set of target storage devices] the new primary node [indicate to switch] and client device 606 connects to and indicates to make node 3 612 [different second set of target storage devices] the new primary node):
disabling access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (Col. 31, lines 17-47; Fig. 6D, elements 632-634, 642-644, rejecting connection access to node 3 612 [another set] after swapping the role of primary node to node 2 610),
swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, the one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Col. 30, line 36 – Col. 31, line 32; Figs. 6B-6D, elements 622-640, in response to a failure in node 1 608 [set of source storage devices], determining which secondary node (node 2 610 or node 3 612) [first or second set of target storage devices] becomes the new primary node by setting up a connection race, and swapping the role of primary node to the winner node 2 610 [first set of target storage devices]), and
disabling access to storage devices that are shared between the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices (Col. 18, line 50 – Col. 19, line 10; Col. 31, lines 33-67; Figs. 6D and 6E, steps 642-652, reconnecting client device 606 to new primary node 2 610, removing connections [disabling access] from node 3 612 (shared between the first and second sets of target storage devices (nodes 2 and 3) since node 3 maintains a secondary replica 618 of node 2)).
The Examiner notes that Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing (another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters), but does teach disabling access (to another set), as used in the rejection above.
Blea and Ping are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blea to further include the scenario wherein the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to different sets of target storage devices according to the teachings of Ping. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reliability by preventing excessive flip-flops between the candidate target storage nodes (Ping, Col. 30, line 51 – Col. 31, line 3).
Blea in view of Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters; preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices, wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed, and performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices.
However, Compton teaches soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (Paragraphs 30-31, soft fencing storage system H3 after swapping user access to storage system H2);
preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices, wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed (Paragraphs 30-32, after swapping primary storage system H1 to secondary storage system H2 [first set], soft fencing [preventing access to] operational secondary system H3 [second set] (only H1 is failed)), and
performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices (Paragraph 63; Fig. 6, element 602, performing additional cleanup processing).
The Examiner notes that Ping teaches disabling access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (when different computing clusters indicate to swap to different sets of target storage devices) while Compton teaches implementing the disabled access via soft fencing.
Blea, Ping, and Compton are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blea in view of Ping to further include the soft fencing, preventing access, and performing a cleanup operation according to the teachings of Compton. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve system reliability by avoiding accidental booting of other target storages (Compton, Paragraphs 32, 34) and to prevent accidental access to the old primary (source) storages (Compton, Paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 3, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a first computing cluster of the plurality of computing clusters is unable to swap to the first set of target storage devices (Blea, Paragraph 34, lines 6-8, Fig. 5, element 506, failover manager 126 determining a target storage that is accessible and available); and
swapping the first computing cluster from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of an unshared storage device (Blea, Paragraph 34, lines 6-12, failover manager 126 cycles through candidate secondary storages, indicating previously unused and thus unshared target storages)
of the second set of target storage devices (Blea, Paragraph 36; Fig. 5, element 522, failover manager 126 establishes new role pairs 200, redirecting I/O requests from the source storage to the target storage).
Regarding claim 4, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first set of storage devices includes a first shared target storage device and the second set of storage devices include a second shared target storage device (Blea, Paragraph 17, lines 3-6, lines 8-9, hosts have shared access over network 114 to target volumes 108.1, 108.2 from among multiple volumes).
Regarding claim 5, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: setting a status associated with the first computing cluster indicating that access to the first shared target storage device by the first computing cluster is disabled (Blea, Paragraph 34, lines 4-6; Fig. 5, element 502, failover manager 126 quiesces access to primary volumes).
Regarding claim 6, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the status is indicated in a unit control block associated with the first shared target storage device (Blea, Paragraph 29, lines 3-9, volume access is managed by the associated Unit Control Blocks).
Regarding claim 7, Blea in view of Ping teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising sending a request message to a storage device associated with each of the plurality of computing clusters; and receiving a response message from the storage device identifying host devices that are utilizing the storage device.
However, Compton teaches further comprising sending a request message to a storage device associated with each of the plurality of computing clusters (Paragraph 56; Fig. 5, element 502, query host access command is issued to the storage volume);
and receiving a response message from the storage device identifying host devices that are utilizing the storage device (Paragraph 56; Fig. 5, element 502, query host access command returns storage system name and all hosts that have an established path to the device).
Blea, Ping, and Compton are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blea in view of Ping to further include the request message to the storage device according to the teachings of Compton. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the swap from using a currently active storage (Compton, Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 8, Blea in view of Ping teaches the method of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein the request message comprises a query host access request.
However, Compton teaches wherein the request message comprises a query host access request (Paragraph 56, query host access is issued to storage).
Blea, Ping, and Compton are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blea in view of Ping to further include the query host access request according to Compton. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the identifiers of all the connected host devices in order to prevent the swap from using a currently active storage device (Compton, Paragraphs 35 and 37).
Regarding claim 10, Blea teaches an apparatus comprising: a processor set (Paragraph 51; Fig. 8, one or more processors 804);
one or more computer-readable storage media (Paragraph 52; Fig. 8, computer system 802 includes a variety of computer system readable media); and
program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations (Paragraph 53; Fig. 8, memory 806 include at least one program product [instructions] configured to carry out functions) comprising:
receiving a notification from each of a plurality of computing clusters through a shared storage device of a set of storage devices (Paragraph 37; Figs. 1 and 6, elements 600 and 602, failover manager 126 of hosts 100, 150 issues a trivial I/O request [notification] to the secondary storage volumes [shared storage device] shared through network 114),
the notification identifying which of a first set of target storage devices and a second set of target storage devices that a particular computing cluster of the plurality of computing clusters is capable of swapping to from a set of source storage devices (Paragraph 37, Fig. 6, elements 600 and 602, the trivial I/O request [notification] sent to the secondary storage volumes validates their availability for a failover event [swap]);
determining, based on the notification from each of the plurality of computing clusters, whether all of the plurality of computing clusters will swap from usage of the set of source storage devices to the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices during a swap event associated with the set of source storage devices (Paragraphs 33-35; Figs. 4-5, elements 406, 502, 506 and 512, failover manager 126 determines a target storage among a plurality of secondary storage systems 104 whose availability is tested by the notification for a failover event, redirecting [swapping] I/O requests from all hosts 100, 150 from primary storage system 102 to the target secondary storage system 104);
detecting the swap event associated with the set of source storage devices (Paragraph 35; Fig. 5, element 508, determining [detecting] whether a valid configuration exists and initiating the failover [swap event] in response); and
when all of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to using one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices (Paragraph 21, Fig. 1, each host 100, 150 contains a failover manager 126 to coordinate with peers a failover [switch]):
swapping, based on the determining and in response to the detecting, all of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the first set of target storage devices (Paragraphs 34, 36; Fig. 5, element 522, failover manager 126 establishes new role pairs 200, redirecting I/O requests from all hosts 100, 150 from the source storage to a selected secondary [target] storage system [first set]), and
preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices (Paragraph 34; Fig. 5, element 510, partitioning hosts 100, 150 out of the sysplex [preventing access] that cannot access the secondary storage system from a plurality of secondary storage systems 104).
Blea does not explicitly teach when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices: soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters, swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, the one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices, and disabling access to storage devices that are shared between the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices; and performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices.
However, Ping teaches when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Col. 29, lines 60-67; Col. 30, lines 39-54; Fig. 6C, elements 622-634, client devices 602, 604 [computing clusters] connect to and indicate to make node 2 610 [first set of target storage devices] the new primary node [indicate to switch] and client device 606 connects to and indicates to make node 3 612 [different second set of target storage devices] the new primary node):
disabling access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (Col. 31, lines 17-47; Fig. 6D, elements 632-634, 642-644, rejecting connection access to node 3 612 [another set] after swapping the role of primary node to node 2 610),
swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, the one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Col. 30, line 36 – Col. 31, line 32; Figs. 6B-6D, elements 622-640, in response to a failure in node 1 608 [set of source storage devices], determining which secondary node (node 2 610 or node 3 612) [first or second set of target storage devices] becomes the new primary node by setting up a connection race, and swapping the role of primary node to the winner node 2 610 [first set of target storage devices]), and
disabling access to storage devices that are shared between the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices (Col. 18, line 50 – Col. 19, line 10; Col. 31, lines 33-67; Figs. 6D and 6E, steps 642-652, reconnecting client device 606 to new primary node 2 610, removing connections [disabling access] from node 3 612 (shared between the first and second sets of target storage devices (nodes 2 and 3) since node 3 maintains a secondary replica 618 of node 2)).
The Examiner notes that Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing (another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters), but does teach disabling access (to another set), as used in the rejection above.
Blea and Ping are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Blea to further include the scenario wherein the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to different sets of target storage devices according to the teachings of Ping. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reliability by preventing excessive flip-flops between the candidate target storage nodes (Ping, Col. 30, line 51 – Col. 31, line 3).
Blea in view of Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters, and performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices.
However, Compton teaches soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (Paragraphs 30-31, soft fencing storage system H3 after swapping user access to storage system H2); and
performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices (Paragraph 63; Fig. 6, element 602, performing additional cleanup processing).
The Examiner notes that Ping teaches disabling access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (when different computing clusters indicate to swap to different sets of target storage devices) while Compton teaches implementing the disabled access via soft fencing.
Blea, Ping, and Compton are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Blea in view of Ping to further include soft fencing target storage devices and performing a cleanup operation according to the teachings of Compton. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve system reliability by avoiding accidental booting of other target storages (Compton, Paragraphs 32, 34) and prevent accidental access to the old primary (source) storages (Compton, Paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 12, this is an apparatus version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 3, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton.
Regarding claim 13, Blea in view of Ping teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first set of storage devices includes a first shared target storage device and the second set of storage devices include a second shared target storage device (Blea, Paragraph 17, lines 3-6, lines 8-9, hosts have shared access over network 114 to target volumes 108.1, 108.2 from among multiple volumes).
Blea in view of Ping does not explicitly teach wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed.
However, Compton teaches wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed (Paragraphs 30-32, after swapping primary storage system H1 to secondary storage system H2 [first set], soft fencing operational secondary system H3 [second set] (only H1 is failed)).
Blea, Ping, and Compton are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Blea in view of Ping to further include the operational sets of target storage devices according to the teachings of Compton. The motivation for doing so would have been to add an additional level of protection by maintaining a tertiary storage system (Compton, Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 14, this is an apparatus version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 5, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton.
Regarding claim 15, this is an apparatus version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton.
Regarding claim 16, Blea teaches a computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media (Paragraph 52; Fig. 8, computer system 802 includes a variety of computer system readable media); and
program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to perform operations (Paragraph 53; Fig. 8, memory 806 include at least one program product [instructions] configured to carry out functions) comprising:
receiving a notification from each of a plurality of computing clusters through a shared storage device of a set of storage devices (Paragraph 37; Figs. 1 and 6, elements 600 and 602, failover manager 126 of hosts 100, 150 issues a trivial I/O request [notification] to the secondary storage volumes [shared storage device] shared through network 114),
the notification identifying which of a first set of target storage devices and a second set of target storage devices that a particular computing cluster of the plurality of computing clusters is capable of swapping to from a set of source storage devices (Paragraph 37, Fig. 6, elements 600 and 602, the trivial I/O request [notification] sent to the secondary storage volumes validates their availability for a failover event [swap]);
determining, based on the notification from each of the plurality of computing clusters, whether all of the plurality of computing clusters will swap from usage of the set of source storage devices to the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices during a swap event associated with the set of source storage devices (Paragraphs 33-35; Figs. 4-5, elements 406, 502, 506 and 512, failover manager 126 determines a target storage among a plurality of secondary storage systems 104 whose availability is tested by the notification for a failover event, redirecting [swapping] I/O requests from all hosts 100, 150 from primary storage system 102 to the target secondary storage system 104);
detecting the swap event associated with the set of source storage devices (Paragraph 35; Fig. 5, element 508, determining [detecting] whether a valid configuration exists and initiating the failover [swap event] in response); and
when all of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to using one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices (Paragraph 21, Fig. 1, each host 100, 150 contains a failover manager 126 to coordinate with peers a failover [switch]):
swapping, based on the determining and in response to the detecting, one or more of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Paragraphs 34, 36; Fig. 5, element 522, in response to a failover [swap] event, failover manager 126 establishes new role pairs 200, redirecting I/O requests from all hosts 100, 150 from the source storage to a selected secondary [target] storage system [first set] among a plurality of secondary storage systems 104).
Blea does not explicitly teach when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices: soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters, swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, the one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices, and disabling access to storage devices that are shared between the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices; preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices, wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed, and performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices.
However, Ping teaches when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Col. 29, lines 60-67; Col. 30, lines 39-54; Fig. 6C, elements 622-634, client devices 602, 604 [computing clusters] connect to and indicate to make node 2 610 [first set of target storage devices] the new primary node [indicate to switch] and client device 606 connects to and indicates to make node 3 612 [different second set of target storage devices] the new primary node):
disabling access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (Col. 31, lines 17-47; Fig. 6D, elements 632-634, 642-644, rejecting connection access to node 3 612 [another set] after swapping the role of primary node to node 2 610),
swapping, based on the determining and in response to detecting the swap event, the one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters from usage of the set of source storage devices to usage of the one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices (Col. 30, line 36 – Col. 31, line 32; Figs. 6B-6D, elements 622-640, in response to a failure in node 1 608 [set of source storage devices], determining which secondary node (node 2 610 or node 3 612) [first or second set of target storage devices] becomes the new primary node by setting up a connection race, and swapping the role of primary node to the winner node 2 610 [first set of target storage devices]), and
disabling access to storage devices that are shared between the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices (Col. 18, line 50 – Col. 19, line 10; Col. 31, lines 33-67; Figs. 6D and 6E, steps 642-652, reconnecting client device 606 to new primary node 2 610, removing connections [disabling access] from node 3 612 (shared between the first and second sets of target storage devices (nodes 2 and 3) since node 3 maintains a secondary replica 618 of node 2)).
The Examiner notes that Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing (another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters), but does teach disabling access (to another set), as is used in the rejection above.
Blea and Ping are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product of Blea to further include the scenario wherein the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to different sets of target storage devices according to the teachings of Ping. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reliability by preventing excessive flip-flops between the candidate target storage nodes (Ping, Col. 30, line 51 – Col. 31, line 3).
Blea in view of Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters; preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices, wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed, and performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices.
However, Compton teaches soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (Paragraphs 30-31, soft fencing storage system H3 after swapping user access to storage system H2);
preventing access to another one of the first set of target storage devices or to the second set of target storage devices, wherein the first set of target storage devices and the second set of target storage devices have not failed (Paragraphs 30-32, after swapping primary storage system H1 to secondary storage system H2 [first set], soft fencing [preventing access to] operational secondary system H3 [second set] (only H1 is failed)), and
performing a clean up operation of the set of source storage devices (Paragraph 63; Fig. 6, element 602, performing additional cleanup processing).
The Examiner notes that Ping teaches disabling access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters (when different computing clusters indicate to swap to different sets of target storage devices) while Compton teaches implementing the disabled access via soft fencing.
Blea, Ping, and Compton are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being controlling a storage network failover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer program product of Blea in view of Ping to further include the soft fencing, preventing access, and performing a cleanup operation according to the teachings of Compton. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve system reliability by avoiding accidental booting of other target storages (Compton, Paragraphs 32, 34) and to prevent accidental access to the old primary (source) storages via soft fencing (Compton, Paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 18, this is a computer program product version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 3, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton.
Regarding claim 19, this is a computer program product version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 4, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton.
Regarding claim 20, this is a computer program product version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 5, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardy (US 20120290729).
Regarding claim 9, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the notification comprises an attention interrupt message.
However, Hardy teaches wherein the notification comprises an attention interrupt message (Paragraph 57, failure of storage devices 315 raises an attention interrupt message to host 303).
Blea, Compton, Ping, and Hardy are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage network management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton to include an attention interrupt message according to the teachings of Hardy. The motivation for doing so would have been to alert the host of a device failure and prevent access to a nonfunctioning storage device (Hardy, Paragraph 46).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton as applied to claims 7 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Blumenau et al. (US 20010020254 A1), hereinafter Blumenau.
Regarding claim 21, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton teaches the method of claim 7 wherein the notification is provided from the storage device to one or more of the computing clusters (Compton, Paragraphs 55-56; Fig. 5, element 502, query host access command is issued to the storage volume and the response [notification] is returned to the host [computing clusters]).
Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton does not explicitly teach further comprising: setting, based on the response message, a flag indicating that the storage device is shared.
However, Blumenau teaches further comprising: setting, based on the response message, a flag indicating that the storage device is shared (Paragraphs 58, 60; Figs. 3 and 4, configuration data [response], received from the system administrator [host], includes a flag indicating whether the volume(s) is shared),
Blea, Ping, Compton, and Blumenau are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage network partition management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton to include the flag according to Blumenau. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent nonprivileged access to unshared devices (Blumenau, Paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 22, this is an apparatus version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 21, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton and Blumenau.
Regarding claim 23, Blea in view of Ping, further in view of Compton and Blumenau teaches the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: sending a request message to a storage device associated with each of the plurality of computing clusters (Compton, Paragraph 56; Fig. 5, element 502, query host access command is issued to the storage volume);
receiving a response message from the storage device identifying host devices that are utilizing the storage device (Compton, Paragraph 56; Fig. 5, element 502, query host access command returns storage system name and all hosts that have an established path to the device); and
setting, based on the response message, a flag indicating that the storage device is shared (Blumenau, Paragraphs 58, 60; Figs. 3 and 4, configuration data [response], received from the system administrator [host], includes a flag indicating whether the volume(s) is shared), and
wherein the notification is provided from the storage device to one or more of the computing clusters (Compton, Paragraphs 55-56; Fig. 5, element 502, query host access command is issued to the storage volume and the response [notification] is returned to the host [computing clusters]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 12-15 of the remarks) filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 16, the Applicant argues that Ping does not disclose or suggest the limitation: “soft fencing another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to by the plurality of computing clusters [when one or more computing clusters of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices and remaining ones of the plurality of computing clusters indicate to switch to a different one of the first set of target storage devices or the second set of target storage devices]”.
However, Ping teaches when different computing clusters indicate to switch to different sets of target storage devices (Ping, Col. 29, lines 60-67; Col. 30, lines 39-54; Fig. 6C, elements 622-634; client devices 602, 604 indicate to switch the primary node to storage node 2 610 while client device 606 indicates to switch to storage node 3 612), the storage system disables access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to (Ping, Col. 31, lines 17-47; Fig. 6D, elements 632-634, 642-644, after switching the primary node to storage node 2 610, rejecting connection access to [another] storage node 3 612).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Although Ping does not explicitly teach soft fencing in this situation, Compton teaches implementing the disabled access to another set of target storage devices that is not swapped to via soft fencing (Compton, Paragraphs 30-31, after switching the primary storage system to secondary storage system H2, soft fencing to disable read/write access to secondary storage system H3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ping to implement the disabling access using the soft fencing of Compton in order to prevent an accidental IPL (Initial Program Load) off the other set of target storage devices (Compton, Paragraphs 32, 34).
Thus, the Examiner argues that the combination of the newly cited areas of the Ping and Compton references teach the newly added limitation of claims 1, 10, and 16, and further notes any arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 16 are consummate in scope with the argument above. Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Pinga whose telephone number is (571) 272-2620. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-6pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Arpan Savla, can be reached on (571) 272-1077. 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.
/J.M.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2137
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights