DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
The following terms lack antecedent basis in the claims:
Claim 5 recites, “The data recovery method according to claim 1, wherein allocating N CPUs to the metadata of all the types with the data volume not greater than the preset data volume comprises …”. Claim 1 does not recite the step of “allocating N CPUs to the metadata of all the types with the data volume not greater than the preset data volume”.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamachari et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0097771 A1) in view of Basu et al. (US PG Pub No. 2021/0271520 A1).
Krishnamachari was disclosed in IDS dated 12/27/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Krishnamachari teaches a data recovery method, applied to a storage device in which multiple types of metadata are stored ([0005]), the method comprising:
acquiring a data volume of metadata of each type ([0023-24]; [0059]);
when the storage device is powered on, controlling each CPU to recover the metadata of the type corresponding to each CPU ([0024]).
Krishnamachari does not teach allocating a corresponding quantity of Central Processing Units (CPUs) to the metadata of each type according to the data volume of metadata of each type.
It is old and well known to allocate more/additional processor resources to a workload based on the size of the task. For example, Basu teaches tasks to multiple CPUs based on workload size in order to load balance the processing of the plurality of task ([0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allocating a corresponding quantity of Central Processing Units (CPUs) to the metadata of each type according to the data volume of metadata of each type. One would be motivated by the desire to reduce the runtime of the job as taught by Basu.
Regarding claim 2, Krishnamachari teaches wherein the storage device comprises at least one storage unit; acquiring a data volume of metadata of each type comprises: when the storage device is powered on, acquiring the data volume of the metadata from the storage unit according to different types ([0023-24]).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnamachari teaches wherein allocating a corresponding quantity of CPUs to the metadata of each type according to the data volume of metadata of each type comprises: acquiring a quantity mapping relationship between the data volume of the metadata and the CPU; and allocating the corresponding quantity of CPUs to the metadata of each type according to the data volume thereof and the quantity mapping relationship ([0024]).
Regarding claims 19-20, they are the apparatus and device claims of claim 1 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-17, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights