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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner notes, claim 20 recites computer storage medium. The medium is interpreted as a physical medium as outlined by Applicant in [0067] Computer storage media are physical storage media that store computer-executable instructions and/or data structures. For this reason, the computer storage medium does not include signals.
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 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. 5.
Claims 12-19 are directed to a system without further limiting said apparatus with a machine. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 12-19 are held to claim an abstract idea, and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In particular, the rationale for finding is explained below: are directed toward non-statutory subject matter include: No recitation of a machine or transformation, either express or inherent. Insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation. Involvement of machine, or transformation, with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, e.g., data gathering, or merely recites a field in which the method is intended to be applied. Machine is generically recited such that it covers any machine capable of performing the claimed step(s). Machine is merely an object on which the method operates. A system or method claim that fails to meet one of the above requirements is not in compliance with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 for patent eligible subject matter. Here the claims fail to meet the above requirements because the limitations are neither tied to a particular machine (such as an apparatus) nor physically transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing. Examiner recommends amending the claim to include a processor or memory as part of the computer system.
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, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman (Pub. No. US 11,520,516) in view of Furman (Pub. No. US 2024/0020140) in view of Zhang (Pub. No. US 2024/0028580).
Claim 1, 12, 20 Jayaraman teaches “a method implemented in a computer system ([Col. 18, Lines 57-67] processors, memory) that includes a processor system, comprising: identifying a write input/output (I/O) operation; identifying a log to be replicated …; persisting the log to local non-volatile memory in the computer system; replicating the log to a plurality of remote hosts, wherein each remote host of the plurality of remote hosts stores the log in a corresponding local non-volatile memory in the remote host ([Col. 8, Lines 21-32] (46) According to various embodiments, various operations associated with FIG. 2 may be performed at any of several nodes, such as the Node A 104, Node B 106, and/or Node N 108 shown in FIG. 1. The coordinator may perform any or all of various command and control functions for the replicated storage volume. For example, the coordinator may transmit instructions to increase or decrease the replication factor of the storage volume. As another example, the coordinator may receive requests to write data to the storage volume and then transmit those requests to each of the replicas in order to maintain data consistency and integrity across the replicas.); committing the write I/O operation after replicating the log to at least a subset of the plurality of remote hosts that comprises a quorum; and de-staging the log to a backing store based on committing the write I/O operation ([Col. 4, Lines 28-48] (20) Techniques and mechanisms described herein optimize synchronous workloads in distributed storage systems. According to various embodiments, volumes and replicas are stored across storage nodes in a storage node cluster. Each replica is stored on a node in a different fault domain from another replica's node. Synchronous write operations are decomposed into asynchronous writes and window flushes. In some embodiments, the window flushes include coalescing adjacent sync operations within a given time window. In some embodiments, the payload of a write operation is transmitted to replica nodes across different fault domains. Once a quorum of replica nodes store the payload in kernel memory, the write operation is acknowledged by the system. Writes stored in kernel memory are then flushed after the window of time has transpired, or if a threshold number of write operations have been cached without a flush. Because write operations are only acknowledged once a quorum of replica nodes have already stored the write payload in their respective kernel memory, then data would only be lost if all nodes in the quorum fail within the given time window, which is extremely improbable. [Col. 17, Lines 59-60] (111) Last, at 1010, the payloads stored in each kernel memory are flushed to persistent storage; Examiner notes Furman [0133] teaches kernel memory is non-volatile memory and therefore obvious one of ordinarily skilled in the art, Jayaraman kernel memory is non-volatile memory for the purposes of design choice.)”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach identifying a log based upon the write operation.
Zhang teaches “identifying a write input/output (I/O) operation; identifying a log to be replicated based on the write I/O operation ([0034] FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a geographically distributed database (or database) 100. The database 100 can span one or more cities, e.g., Beijing, Xi'an and Shenzhen as illustrated. Each table in the database 100 can be distributed into three primary shards by either hashing or range partitions. Each primary shard can have one primary (indicated via a star) and four replicas (also known as standbys). As illustrated, two of the replicas can be located in the same city as the primary, while the other two replicas can be located in other remote cities. [0035] When a WRITE operation is performed on a table's data, the database 100 can determine which shard the data belongs to, and where the primary shard is located. Then, the WRITE operation can be applied on the determined primary shard. Thereafter, an appropriate number of REDO records can be generated based on the WRITE operation and propagated to the local and remote standbys (replicas))”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman in order to provide a system that teaches details of data replications. The motivation for applying Zhang teaching with Jayaraman, Furman teaching is to provide a system that allows for identifying what data to be replicated to remote locations. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 4, 15, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Furman teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding local non-volatile memory comprises a persistent memory ([0133] non-volatile media (e.g. kernel memory).)”.
Claim 6, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Jayaraman teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the quorum comprises less than a majority of the plurality of remote hosts ([Col. 17, Lines 47-58] (110) At 1008, the write request is acknowledged only after a quorum of storage nodes has stored the payload in their respective kernel memory. In some embodiments, a quorum is just a simple majority of the nodes. For example, in FIG. 9, a quorum is reached because storage nodes 902 and 904 have payload 940 stored in kernel cache 922, even though node 906 does not yet have payload 940 stored in kernel cache. In some embodiments, write operations are acknowledged only after all storage nodes store the payload in kernel memory. In some embodiments, each replica node first sends a notification back to the server, compute node, or storage node once the payload is stored in kernel memory.)”.
Claim 11, the combination teaches the claim wherein Jayaraman teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein replicating the log to the plurality of remote hosts comprises each remote host of the plurality of remote hosts storing the log in the corresponding local non-volatile memory in the remote host without de-staging the log to the backing store ([Col. 2, Lines 15-20] Last, the payloads stored in each kernel memory is flushed to persistent storage only after a predetermined window of time has transpired or after a threshold number of outstanding write requests that have been acknowledged, but not yet flushed, has been reached.)”.
Claim/s 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Ahmad (Pub. No. US 2022/0138220).
Claim 2, 13, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Zhang teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the log comprises data written by the write I/O operation ([0036] REDO logs (comprising of REDO records), once arrived at a replica, can be applied on the replica in the order generated from the primary. Once a replica applies all REDO logs received from its corresponding primary, the replica is assumed to have identical data as the primary.)”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach metadata.
Ahmad teaches “metadata describing the log ([0044] A replication log 112 can be maintained to track the data records and metadata for each of the data tenancies stored in a first region 102 (e.g., Region A). The replication log 112 can provide information regarding the data records to the replication system 114 when a request to replicate data to a new region is received. The replication log 112 can store the number of records for each tenancy. The replication log 112 can store information on the size in bits of each of the records for each tenancy. The replication log 112 can identify the one or more records from the one or more tenancies that have been updated. The updated records can be replicated in the various other regions for which a customer is subscribed.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Ahmad with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of data replications. The motivation for applying Ahmad teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Ahmad are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Ahmad teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Ahmad with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Xu (Pub. No. US 2023/0409599).
Claim 3, 14, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Xu teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein replicating the log to the plurality of remote hosts includes using Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) to transfer the log to each remote host ([0032] After data synchronization is completed, a real-time log synchronization is established. In some examples, the real-time log synchronization is provided as a uni-directional replicate path in cases where write transactions are only to be executed on one instance (e.g., the first instance 202). In some examples, the real-time log synchronization is provided as a bi-directional replicate path in cases where write transactions are to be executed on both instances. Because the RDMA connection 232 supports high throughput, the log can be transferred in fully synchronized manner (i.e., bi-directional) with low latency. This ensures that that data on both instances is the same, which is particularly relevant in cases of write transactions being executed in multiple instances. Further, replication of the log is executed in real-time to minimize any period of time in which logs could be inconsistent. As used herein, real-time refers to transmitting or processing data given the processing limitations of a system and without intentional delay.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of data replications. The motivation for applying Xu teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Xu are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Xu teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Caradonna (Pub. No. US 2016/0011929).
Claim 5, 16, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Caradonna teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein, identifying the write I/O operation comprises identifying the write I/O operation from a virtual storage controller; and committing the write I/O operation comprises notifying the virtual storage controller ([0029] In this example, the active virtual storage controller 30(2) also sends the one or more transactions to the passive virtual storage controller 30(2), which stores the one or more transactions, as described and illustrated in more detail later. In another example, such as an n-way high availability implementation in which a plurality of active virtual storage controllers are monitored by one passive virtual storage controller, the active virtual storage controller can send the one or more transactions to the transaction log database 18 with a unique identifier of the active virtual storage controller 30(1). Upon receipt, the transaction log database 18 stores the one or more transactions as associated with the active virtual storage controller 30(1). Optionally, only a subset of the one or more transactions received in step 300 are sent to the passive virtual storage controller 30(2), such as those write transactions that affect data stored by the storage servers 16(1)-16(n), for example. [0030] In step 304 in this example in which the one or more transactions are sent by the active virtual storage controller 30(1) to the passive virtual storage controller 30(2), the active virtual storage controller 30(1) receives one or more acknowledgements from the passive virtual storage controller 30(2) of receipt of each of the one or more transactions. After receiving the one or more acknowledgements in step 304, the active virtual storage controller 30(1) acknowledges the one or more transactions in step 306 to the source of the one or more transactions, such as one or more of the client devices 14(1)-14(n), for example.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Caradonna with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of data replications. The motivation for applying Caradonna teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Caradonna are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Caradonna teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Caradonna with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Bono (Pat. No. US 9,881,014).
Claim 7, 17, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Bono teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, prior to identifying the write I/O operation: receiving a first message from a management service requesting the computer system to de-stage persisted logs to the backing store; acquiring exclusive access to the backing store; de-staging one or more logs persisted to the local non-volatile memory in the computer system; sending a second message to the management service indicating a completion of de-staging the persisted logs to the backing store; and accepting write I/O operations ([Col. 11, Lines 10-41] (54) The encircled numbers in FIG. 4 identify an example sequence of events. At (1), the first data storage system 116 receives an IO request 112 specifying data to be written in the storage 180 for a particular data object 412 (e.g., a LUN, a host file system, a vVOL, etc.). The IO request 112 propagates down the IO stack 140 (FIG. 2) and encounters the replication splitter 226. The replication splitter 226 intercepts the IO request and temporarily prevents the IO request from propagating further down the IO stack 140 (FIG. 2). At (2), the replication splitter 226 sends the IO request (e.g., a version thereof) to the first replication appliance 160. At (3), the first replication appliance 160 forwards the IO request to the second replication appliance 460, which stores the data specified in the IO request in the buffer 462. At (4), the second replication appliance 460 acknowledges safe storage of the data specified in the IO request to the first replication appliance 160 (e.g., that the data specified in the IO request are persisted in the buffer 462). At (5), the first replication appliance 160 in turn acknowledges receipt to the replication splitter 226. Only when the replication splitter 226 receives the acknowledgement does the replication splitter 226 allow the IO request to continue propagating down the IO stack 140 (FIG. 2) to complete the write operation to the storage 180. At (6), the first data storage system 116 acknowledges completion of the IO request 112 back to the originating host. Asynchronously with the IO request, the second replication appliance 460 may de-stage the buffer 462 to the replica 422 of the data object maintained in the storage 480. For example, at (7), the data specified in the IO request are transferred from the buffer 462 to the storage 480, and at (8), the second data storage system acknowledges completion.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Bono with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of purging of Jayaraman. The motivation for applying Bono teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for evidence prior flushes are performed before accepting additional writes to maintain consistency. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Bono are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Bono teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Bono with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Victor (Pub. No. US 2023/0195697).
Claim 8, 18, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Victor teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises assigning a unique log identifier to the log ([0058] In the example shown in FIG. 6, a first log file chunk 602A comprises two log records 320A and 320B which are associated with corresponding data files 604A and 604B respectively. These data files 604A and 604B may be column store data files, binary large objects or other data files which have corresponding log records 320A and 320B in the log files 318. The second log file chunk 602B comprises two log records 320C and 320D corresponding to data 604C and 604D respectively. In the example shown, each of the log file chunks 602A, 602B comprises a respective log file chunk name 606A, 606B used to reference the relevant log file chunk 602A, 602B.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Victor with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of data replications. The motivation for applying Victor teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Victor are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Victor teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Victor with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Lee (Pub. No. USU 2023/0185822).
Claim 9, 19, the combination teaches the claim wherein Zhang teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: storing a record of the log in an index ([0035] When a WRITE operation is performed on a table's data, the database 100 can determine which shard the data belongs to, and where the primary shard is located. Then, the WRITE operation can be applied on the determined primary shard. Thereafter, an appropriate number of REDO records can be generated based on the WRITE operation and propagated to the local and remote standbys (replicas))”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach read requests.
Lee teaches “using the index, serving data corresponding to the log in response to a read I/O request ([0097] When the input/output request is a read request, the primary compute node 3112 may acquire data from the primary storage volume 3222. In addition, when the input/output request is a write request, the primary compute node 3112 may provide, to the primary storage node 322, a replication request in conjunction with the first data via the network 330.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of data replications. The motivation for applying Lee teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Lee are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Lee teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in view of Shveidel (Pat. No. US 11,409,454).
Claim 10, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Shveidel teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein persisting the log to the local non-volatile memory in the computer system comprises persisting log data to a first ring buffer, and persisting log metadata to a second ring buffer ([Col. 21, Line 60 – Col. 22, Line 8] In at least one embodiment, both the first structure of logged data and the second structure of logged descriptors may be implemented as ring buffers. For example, the first structure may be a first ring buffer of page blocks (PBs) where each PB includes the write data of a single logged write. The second structure may be a second ring buffer of page descriptors (PDESCs) where each PDESC includes a descriptor of a single logged request such as a write operation. For a write operation that writes data, the logged write operation may be described by a PDESC of the log, the data written may be stored in a PB of the log, and the PDESC of the log may include a reference to the PB containing the data written. In some systems, requests or operations in addition to write operations may be recorded in the log using PDESCs where such PDESCs of these additional requests or operations may not have an associated PB.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Shveidel with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang in order to provide a system that teaches details of storing data. The motivation for applying Shveidel teaching with Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Shveidel are analogous art directed towards data replications. Together Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang, Shveidel teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Shveidel with the teachings of Jayaraman, Furman, Zhang by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights