DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant remarks filed on July 2, 2026 in
application 18/545,479.
Claims 21-23, 26-27, 29-33, 36-37, 39-46 are presented for examination. Claims 22-23, 26, 31-33, 36, 42-44 are amended. Claims 1-20, 24-25, 28, 34-35 and 38 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that Baek fails to teach the determining whether a reliability objection is satisfied and Colgrove does not disclosed MTTDL (mean time to data loss) or using MTTDL as a target.
Examiner disagreed. The 35 USC 103 combination rejection of Colgrove and Baek is disclosed to teach the claimed invention. Colgrove teach of a flexible RAID data layout that monitor the characteristic of the device, reliability level, for selecting alternate RAID geometries. Baek is used in combination to teach that one reliability characteristic that could be monitored is MTTDL.
For these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 26-27, 29-33, 36-37, 39-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 7, 10-15, 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,494,267.
Claims 21-23, 26-27, 29-33, 36-37, 39-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,853,164.
Claims 21, 31 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/487,884.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the claims are broader but otherwise recite similar limitations.
Current Application
18/545,479
Patent 11,494,267
(app. 16/848,590)
Patent 11,853,164
(app. 17/979,841)
Patent 12,487,884
(app. 15/994,035)
Claim 21
Claims 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 22
Claim 1
Claim 1-2
Claim 23
Claim 2-4
Claim 3-5
Claim 26
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 27
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 29
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 30
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 31
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 1
Claim 32
Claim 10
Claim 10-11
Claim 33
Claim 11-13
Claim 12-14
Claim 36
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 37
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 39
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 40
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 1
Claim 41
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 42
Claim 18
Claim 1-2
Claim 43
Claim 2-4
Claim 3-5
Claim 44
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 45
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 46
Claim 8
Claim 9
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 29, 31, 40, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgrove et al. (US 10,180,879) in further view of Baek et al. (US 2002/0124139).
In regard to claim 21, Colgrove et al. teach a method comprising:
determining, using a storage geometry in a storage system (flexible RAID data layout architecture, where each segment will have its own geometry, fig. 10-11, col. 16 lines 60-67 and col. 18 lines 5-67), whether a target for a dataset is satisfied based on a time to rebuild the dataset (during operation, the RAID engine may monitor characteristic of the storage devices and determine the devices are exhibiting a reliability level higher than an initial or other given reliability level … monitoring and changing a protection level may be performed, fig. 8, col. 13 lines 1-20, detect a change in reliability, fig. 9, 914); and
selecting a different storage geometry for the dataset in response to determining that a particular storage geometry fails to satisfy the target (selecting alternate RAID geometries in a data storage subsystem, fig. 13, col.23 lines 5-56, change in the amount of protection may be made, fig. 9, 916).
Colgrove et al. does not explicitly teach a detected change in the mean time to data loss.
Baek et al. teach of the reliability of the RAID is measured in mean-time-to-data-loss (MTTDL) (para. 35).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Colgrove et al. by adding Baek et al. RAID system. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in providing a well-known method to measure reliability of the RAID (para. 35-50).
In regard to claim 29, Colgrove et al. teach the method of claim 21, further comprising: implementing, by the storage system, a redundant array of independent disks storage system (RAID data layout, col. 9 lines 10-25).
In regard to claim 31, Colgrove et al. teach an apparatus comprising:
a memory (plurality of storage locations, col.2 lines 25-50); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory (computer system, col. 2 lines 25-50), configured to:
determine, using a storage geometry in a storage system (flexible RAID data layout architecture, where each segment will have its own geometry, fig. 10-11, col. 16 lines 60-67 and col. 18 lines 5-67), whether a target for a dataset is satisfied based on a time to rebuild the dataset (during operation, the RAID engine may monitor characteristic of the storage devices and determine the devices are exhibiting a reliability level higher than an initial or other given reliability level … monitoring and changing a protection level may be performed, fig. 8, col. 13 lines 1-20, detect a change in reliability, fig. 9, 914); and
select a different storage geometry for the dataset in response to determining that a particular storage geometry fails to satisfy the target (selecting alternate RAID geometries in a data storage subsystem, fig. 13, col.23 lines 5-56, change in the amount of protection may be made, fig. 9, 916).
Colgrove et al. does not explicitly teach determining and selecting a different storage geometry in response to a detected change in the mean time to data loss.
Baek et al. teach of the reliability of the RAID is measured in mean-time-to-data-loss (MTTDL) (para. 35).
Refer to claim 21 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 39, Colgrove et al. teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is further configured to: implement, by the storage system, a redundant array of independent disks storage system (RAID data layout, col. 9 lines 10-25).
In regard to claim 40, Colgrove et al. teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which, when executed, cause a processing device to:
determine, using a storage geometry in a storage system (flexible RAID data layout architecture, where each segment will have its own geometry, fig. 10-11, col. 16 lines 60-67 and col. 18 lines 5-67), whether a target for a dataset is satisfied based on a time to rebuild the dataset (during operation, the RAID engine may monitor characteristic of the storage devices and determine the devices are exhibiting a reliability level higher than an initial or other given reliability level … monitoring and changing a protection level may be performed, fig. 8, col. 13 lines 1-20, detect a change in reliability, fig. 9, 914); and
select a different storage geometry for the dataset in response to determining that a particular storage geometry fails to satisfy the target (selecting alternate RAID geometries in a data storage subsystem, fig. 13, col.23 lines 5-56, change in the amount of protection may be made, fig. 9, 916).
Colgrove et al. does not explicitly teach determining and selecting a different storage geometry in response to a detected change in the mean time to data loss.
Baek et al. teach of the reliability of the RAID is measured in mean-time-to-data-loss (MTTDL) (para. 35).
Refer to claim 21 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 46, Colgrove et al. teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 40, wherein the processing device is further configured to: implement, by the storage system, a redundant array of independent disks storage system (RAID data layout, col. 9 lines 10-25).
********************
Claims 22, 30, 32, 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgrove et al. (US 10,180,879) in further view of Baek et al. (US 2002/0124139) in further view of Matze et al. (US 11,487,628).
In regard to claim 22, Colgrove et al. teach the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining a redundancy value for the dataset is based on a storage capacity utilization of the storage system (determine a level of protection to use for storage devices … may utilize RAID double parity, fig. 7, col. 12 lines 35-55); and
generating, based on the redundancy value for the dataset, data recovery information for the dataset (generating redundancy data represent the RAID double parity from corresponding user data, fig. 7, col. 12 lines 35-55).
Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. does not explicitly teach determining a redundancy value for the data set exceeding a threshold amount of storage capacity.
Matze et al. teach of when the stable file portion count of any storage system reaches a preselected low threshold value, the failed storage system is preferably rebuilt (col. 6 lines 38-46). Data replication method can calculate a computer hash value for at least one selected file portion, and preferably for each file portion and optionally can calculate a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) value for the SHA value (col. 5 lines 15-67 and col. 6 lines 1-61).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. by adding Matze et al. rapidly transferring and recovering large data sets. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in data replication (para. 5 lines 4-67 and col. 6 lines 1-67).
In regard to claim 30, Colgrove et al. teach the method of claim 22, wherein the redundancy value for the dataset is different from at least one other redundancy value for another dataset stored within the storage system (each segment will have its own geometry, col. 18 lines 5-67).
In regard to claim 32, Colgrove et al. teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a redundancy value for the dataset is based on a storage capacity utilization of the storage system (determine a level of protection to use for storage devices … may utilize RAID double parity, fig. 7, col. 12 lines 35-55); and
generate, based on the redundancy value for the dataset, data recovery information for the dataset (generating redundancy data represent the RAID double parity from corresponding user data, fig. 7, col. 12 lines 35-55).
Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. does not explicitly teach determining a redundancy value for the data set exceeding a threshold amount of storage capacity.
Matze et al. teach of when the stable file portion count of any storage system reaches a preselected low threshold value, the failed storage system is preferably rebuilt (col. 6 lines 38-46). Data replication method can calculate a computer hash value for at least one selected file portion, and preferably for each file portion and optionally can calculate a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) value for the SHA value (col. 5 lines 15-67 and col. 6 lines 1-61).
Refer to claim 22 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 41, Colgrove et al. teach the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the redundancy value for the dataset is different from at least one other redundancy value for another dataset stored within the storage system (for alternate geometries … an algorithm such as CRUSH algorithm may be utilized to select which devices to use in a RAID data layout architecture to use for data storage … RAID array shown may all be different, fig. 12, col. 21 lines 30-65).
In regard to claim 42, Colgrove et al. teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 40, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
determine a redundancy value for the dataset is based on a storage capacity utilization of the storage system (determine a level of protection to use for storage devices … may utilize RAID double parity, fig. 7, col. 12 lines 35-55); and
generate, based on the redundancy value for the dataset, data recovery information for the dataset (generating redundancy data represent the RAID double parity from corresponding user data, fig. 7, col. 12 lines 35-55).
Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. does not explicitly teach determining a redundancy value for the data set exceeding a threshold amount of storage capacity.
Matze et al. teach of when the stable file portion count of any storage system reaches a preselected low threshold value, the failed storage system is preferably rebuilt (col. 6 lines 38-46). Data replication method can calculate a computer hash value for at least one selected file portion, and preferably for each file portion and optionally can calculate a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) value for the SHA value (col. 5 lines 15-67 and col. 6 lines 1-61).
Refer to claim 22 for motivational statement.
********************
Claims 23, 33, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgrove et al. (US 10,180,879) in further view of Baek et al. (US 2002/0124139) in further view of Matze et al. (US 11,487,628) in further view of Shappir et al. (US 10,915,394) in further view of Gaertner et al. (US 2013/0007511).
In regard to claim 23, Colgrove et al. teach the method of claim 21, further comprising: determining, based on different datasets being stored using different redundancy values (the RAID engine may monitor behavior of the one or more storage devices within the RAID array, the data which is monitored may be stored and tables may be used to store this data to detect and predict behavior of storage devices, if increased reliability of the storage devices id detected then the RAID engine may decrease the level of data protection within the system, fig. 4, col. 15 lines 14-52).
Colgrove et al., Baek et al. and Matze et al. does not explicitly teach that an average redundancy value of the dataset stored within the storage system corresponds to a continuous redundancy value between a redundancy floor value and a redundancy ceiling value.
Shappir et al. teach of calculating the average amount of redundancy data required per memory block … calculated over a stripe of multiple SLC blocks, wherein the SLC blocks reside in multiple respective different planes (col. 6 lines 4-25). It is noted that the average amount of redundancy data required would be a value between the lowest and highest redundancy value.
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Colgrove et al., Baek et al. and Matze et al. by adding Shappir et al. schemes for protecting data. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in data protection, balancing protection level and required storage (col. 6 lines 1-25).
Colgrove et al., Baek et al., Matze et al. and Shappir et al. does not explicitly teach where the continuous redundancy value is indicative of a degree of granularity associated with the time to rebuild the dataset.
Gaertner et al. teach of rapid rebuild processing that can facilitate time efficient reconstruction of the data where data can be successfully recovered, since data redundancy is available for the copied-over data (para. 67, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Colgrove et al., Baek et al., Matze et al. and Shappir et al. by adding Gaertner et al. rapid rebuild of a dataset. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in facilitating time efficient reconstruction of the data (para. 67, fig. 7).
In regard to claim 33, Colgrove et al. teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on different datasets being stored using different redundancy values, (the RAID engine may monitor behavior of the one or more storage devices within the RAID array, the data which is monitored may be stored and tables may be used to store this data to detect and predict behavior of storage devices, if increased reliability of the storage devices id detected then the RAID engine may decrease the level of data protection within the system, fig. 4, col. 15 lines 14-52).
Colgrove et al., Baek et al. and Matze et al. does not explicitly teach that an average redundancy value of the dataset stored within the storage system corresponds to a continuous redundancy value between a redundancy floor value and a redundancy ceiling value.
Shappir et al. teach of calculating the average amount of redundancy data required per memory block … calculated over a stripe of multiple SLC blocks, wherein the SLC blocks reside in multiple respective different planes (col. 6 lines 4-25). It is noted that the average amount of redundancy data required would be a value between the lowest and highest redundancy value.
Refer to claim 23 for motivational statement.
Colgrove et al., Baek et al., Matze et al. and Shappir et al. does not explicitly teach where the continuous redundancy value is indicative of a degree of granularity associated with the time to rebuild the dataset.
Gaertner et al. teach of rapid rebuild processing that can facilitate time efficient reconstruction of the data where data can be successfully recovered, since data redundancy is available for the copied-over data (para. 67, fig. 7).
Refer to claim 23 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 43, Colgrove et al. teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 40, wherein the processing device is further configured to: determine, based on different datasets being stored using different redundancy values (the RAID engine may monitor behavior of the one or more storage devices within the RAID array, the data which is monitored may be stored and tables may be used to store this data to detect and predict behavior of storage devices, if increased reliability of the storage devices id detected then the RAID engine may decrease the level of data protection within the system, fig. 4, col. 15 lines 14-52).
Colgrove et al., Baek et al. and Matze et al. does not explicitly teach that an average redundancy value of the dataset stored within the storage system corresponds to a continuous redundancy value between a redundancy floor value and a redundancy ceiling value.
Shappir et al. teach of calculating the average amount of redundancy data required per memory block … calculated over a stripe of multiple SLC blocks, wherein the SLC blocks reside in multiple respective different planes (col. 6 lines 4-25). It is noted that the average amount of redundancy data required would be a value between the lowest and highest redundancy value.
Refer to claim 23 for motivational statement.
Colgrove et al., Baek et al., Matze et al. and Shappir et al. does not explicitly teach where the continuous redundancy value is indicative of a degree of granularity associated with the time to rebuild the dataset.
Gaertner et al. teach of rapid rebuild processing that can facilitate time efficient reconstruction of the data where data can be successfully recovered, since data redundancy is available for the copied-over data (para. 67, fig. 7).
Refer to claim 23 for motivational statement.
********************
Claims 26-27, 36-37, 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colgrove et al. (US 10,180,879) in further view of Baek et al. (US 2002/0124139) in further view of Gao (US 2015/0227457).
In regard to claim 26, Colgrove et al. teach the method of claim 21, further comprising:
setting, the time to rebuild the dataset according to a target time to rebuild the dataset (determine the layout and protection level to use for the data may be made, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41); and
increasing data recovery performance associated with the dataset (if a particular condition is detected such as a change in reliability, then a change in the amount of protection used for stored data may be made, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41).
Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. does not explicitly teach increasing data recovery by tuning the time to rebuild the dataset toward the target time to rebuild the dataset.
Gao teach of estimating T1 for completing current operation, compares T1 to a first threshold, if T1 is larger than the first threshold determines if redundancy is provided and determines time T2 to rebuild the data using the redundancy, compares T2 to a second threshold, if T2 is equal or lower than the second threshold rebuilds the target data using redundancy (para. 31-33, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. by adding Gao managing response time. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in using redundancy algorithms to rebuild the data (para. 25).
In regard to claim 27, Colgrove et al. teach the method of claim 26, wherein tuning the target time comprises: adjusting a parity value associated with the dataset (change in the amount of protection used for stored data … one or more extra storage devices per RAID stripe may be used to store parity information, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41).
In regard to claim 36, Colgrove et al. teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is further configured to:
set, the time to rebuild the dataset according to a target time to rebuild the dataset (determine the layout and protection level to use for the data may be made, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41); and
increasing data recovery performance associated with the dataset (if a particular condition is detected such as a change in reliability, then a change in the amount of protection used for stored data may be made, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41).
Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. does not explicitly teach increasing data recovery by tuning the time to rebuild the dataset toward the target time to rebuild the dataset.
Gao teach of estimating T1 for completing current operation, compares T1 to a first threshold, if T1 is larger than the first threshold determines if redundancy is provided and determines time T2 to rebuild the data using the redundancy, compares T2 to a second threshold, if T2 is equal or lower than the second threshold rebuilds the target data using redundancy (para. 31-33, fig. 5).
Refer to claim 26 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 37, Colgrove et al. teach the apparatus of claim 36, wherein the processor configured to tune the target time is further configured to: adjust a parity value associated with the dataset (change in the amount of protection used for stored data … one or more extra storage devices per RAID stripe may be used to store parity information, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41).
In regard to claim 44, Colgrove et al. teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 40, wherein the processing device is further configured to:
set, the time to rebuild the dataset according to a target time to rebuild the dataset (determine the layout and protection level to use for the data may be made, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41); and
increasing data recovery performance associated with the dataset (if a particular condition is detected such as a change in reliability, then a change in the amount of protection used for stored data may be made, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41).
Colgrove et al. and Baek et al. does not explicitly teach increasing data recovery by tuning the time to rebuild the dataset toward the target time to rebuild the dataset.
Gao teach of estimating T1 for completing current operation, compares T1 to a first threshold, if T1 is larger than the first threshold determines if redundancy is provided and determines time T2 to rebuild the data using the redundancy, compares T2 to a second threshold, if T2 is equal or lower than the second threshold rebuilds the target data using redundancy (para. 31-33, fig. 5).
Refer to claim 26 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 45, Colgrove et al. teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 44, wherein the processing device is further configured to: adjust a parity value associated with the dataset (change in the amount of protection used for stored data … one or more extra storage devices per RAID stripe may be used to store parity information, fig. 9, col. 13 lines 55-67 and col. 14 lines 1-41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Swift et al. (US 9,053,167) rebuild
Baptist et al. (US 2018/0060351) redundancy value and the number of encoded data slices
Lamba et al. (US 2019/0347005) redundancy value
Sands, III (US 6,785,788) rebuild time
Hajji et al. (US 2005/0015653) using redundant spares to reduce rebuild time
Sun et al. (US 11,442,651) time required for the data rebuilding
Fultz et al. (US 9,256,381) rebuild time
Lu (US 6,952,794) rebuilding RAID
Horst et al. (US 6,775,794) reducing rebuild time of a disk drive
*****************
Wilkes et al. (US 5,720,025) (Hewlett-Packard) mean-time-to-first-data-loss
Enz et al. (US 2019/0050168) (EXTEN) RAID geometry and mean time to data loss (MTTDL)
Agombar et al. (US 10,210,062) (IBM) RAID array and rebuild times
Goel et al. (US 8,453,036) (Network Appliance) resizing parity cluster
Belhadj et al. (US 2014/0143594) (Hewlett-Packard) RAID geometry and rebuild time period
Hallak et al. (US 2015/0169408) RAID and time to rebuild
Davies et al. (US 10,409,682) (Seagate) time to rebuild a data set and stripe geometry
Liu et al. (US 10,852,966) (EMC) rebuild time
*****************
Colgrove et al. (US 11,435,904) same assignee, detect change in reliability of RAID
Davis et al. (US 12,253,922) reconfiguring storage nodes
Chatterjee et al. (US 7,206,991) migration between striped storage
Izen et al. (US 2021/0248068) geometry addressable region
*****************
Foley et al. (US 11,868,612) geometry of RAID (RAID5, RAID6, TripleParityRAID6)
Brennan et al. (US 2019/0073265) same assignee, continuous value data redundancy
Dalmatov et al. (US 2021/0216230) RAID levels
Honda et al. (US 2018/0196718) recovery means level for RAID
Oikawa et al. (US 2017/0075574) RAID with time limit threshold for recovery
Miller (US 2016/0255016) group of nodes in cluster implementing quality of service
Jacobson (US 8,145,941) RAID level for rebuilding failed disk
Burton et al. (US 2004/0225914) RAID geometry
Belhadj et al. (US 8,892,939) choose a value for one of the rebuild rate or the scrub rate
King et al. (US 2002/0169996) RAID geometry
Humlicek et al. (US 5,822,782) RAID geometry
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN TRUONG whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights