DETAILED ACTION
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 remarks filed 12 August 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. New grounds of rejection are presented below.
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) 1-2, 9-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirezaki et al., US 2006/0107010 A1, in view of Gudlavenkatasiva et al., US 2011/0276821 A1.
Ass per claims 1 and 10, Hirezaki teaches:
selecting one or more data records for migration from a first record system to a second record system, Hirezaki ¶ 0052, where data retained in the first storage device is selected;
migrating the one or more data records from the first record system to the second record system, the migrating comprising loading copies of the one or more data records into the second record system, Hirezaki ¶ 0052, where data retained in the first storage device is migrated to a second storage device;
controlling access to the one or more data records during the migrating, wherein the controlling comprises ensuring that the one or more data records remain accessible and available during the migration, Hirezaki ¶¶ 0057-59; and
for each data record of the one or more data records:
verifying a copy of the data record in the second record system, Hirezaki ¶ 0056, where data is determined to have been copied; and
when the copy of the data record in the second record system is successfully verified:
marking the data record as available on the second record system, Hirezaki ¶ 0056, where the data migration state management unit verifies the copy and marks a flag; and
updating user interaction related functions to use the copy of the data record in the second record system when handling user interactions related to the data record, Hirezaki ¶ 0058, where the read function is updated.
Hirezaki, however, does not teach:
when the copy of the data record in the second record system is not successfully verified, taking at least one corrective action that is related to one or both of the data record and migration of the data record, wherein the at least one corrective action comprises: marking the data record for re-migration, and re-attempting migrating of the data record.
The analogous and compatible art of Gudlavenkatasiva, however, teaches, for an invalid or failed migration, to re-execute a failed migration. Gudlavenkatasiva ¶¶ 0032-35.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine that the copying to the migration destination volume of Hirezaka has failed or is invalid as in Gudlavenkatasiva and then retrying the data record for migration in order to ensure that the data is successfully migrated.
As per claims 2 and 11, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, and Hirezaki further teaches:
when the copy of the data record in the second record system is successfully verified, marking a copy of the data record in the first record system as unavailable, Hirezaki ¶ 0056, where changing the state marks the copy of data in the first record system/first storage device as unavailable, as it causes the reads to be directed to the second record system/second storage device.
As per claims 9 and 18, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, and Hirezaki further teaches:
wherein controlling access to the one or more data records during the migrating comprises ensuring that each data record is either not accessible or is accessible on only one of the first record system and the second record system, Hirezaki ¶¶ 0058-59.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-8, 12-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirezaki et al., US 2006/0107010 A1, in view of Gudlavenkatasiva et al., US 2011/0276821 A1, and further in view of Candea et al., US 2008/0244585 A1.
As per claims 3 and 12, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, but Hirezaki does not teach:
when the copy of the data record in the second record system is not successfully verified, marking the copy of the data record in the second record system for deletion.
The analogous and compatible art of Candea, however, teaches marking a migrated record for deletion when it fails verification. Candea ¶¶ 0095-0105.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hirezaki to mark the copy of the data record in the second record system for deletion as taught in Candea in order to copy over a fresh version from the first record system and thereby ensure correct data is in place.
As per claims 4 and 13, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, but Hirezaki does not teach:
when the copy of the data record in the second record system is not successfully verified, marking a copy of the data record that still remains in the first record system as available.
The analogous and compatible art of Candea, however, teaches marking a migrated record for deletion when it fails verification. Candea ¶¶ 0095-0105.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hirezaki to incorporate the checksum test of Candea as part of the migration state management of Hirezaki, Hirezaki ¶ 0056, ensuring that the checksum is passed before changing the migration state, i.e., marking the first record system copy as available under a broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed, and thereby ensure correct data is in place.
As per claims 6 and 15, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, but Hirezaki does not teach:
wherein verifying the data record comprises comparing the copy of the data record in the second record system with a copy of the data record that still remains in the first record system.
The analogous and compatible art of Candea, however, teaches comparing a checksum of a migrated record to its original checksum. Candea ¶¶ 0095-0105.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hirezaki to compare a copy of a record with an original record by comparing checksums as taught in Candea in order to copy over a fresh version from the first record system and thereby ensure correct data is in place.
As per claims 7 and 16, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, and Hirezaki further teaches:
wherein verifying the data record comprises checking content of the data record.
The analogous and compatible art of Candea, however, teaches comparing a checksum of a migrated record to its original checksum, which checks content of the record. Candea ¶¶ 0095-0105.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hirezaki to compare a copy of a record with an original record by comparing checksums as taught in Candea in order to copy over a fresh version from the first record system and thereby ensure correct data is in place.
As per claims 8 and 17, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated, and Hirezaki further teaches:
when checking content of the data record, allowing for an amount of difference for at least a portion of the content of the data record.
The analogous and compatible art of Candea, however, teaches comparing a checksum of a migrated record to its original checksum, where the amount under a broadest reasonable interpretation is zero . Candea ¶¶ 0095-0105.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hirezaki to compare a copy of a record with an original record by comparing checksums as taught in Candea in order to copy over a fresh version from the first record system and thereby ensure correct data is in place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159