DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 (C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement, dated 11/6/2025, is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunker et al (US 11,803,453) in view of Pabon et al (US 2024/0289038).
Regarding Claim 1, Bunker teaches a computer-implemented method for configuring asymmetric logical unit access (ALUA) states for paths in a multipath storage system, said method comprising:
providing storage feature indications for paths between a host (host 432 of Fig. 4) and a volume (volume corresponding to a volume of a storage system 424 of Fig. 4, the storage feature indications corresponding to “lower latency, better throughput, or less switching infrastructure” for particular paths, C59 L17-39); and
configuring ALUA states for available paths between a host and a volume based at least partially on the storage feature indications to direct host operations to one or more paths based on available storage features at the storage system to prioritize paths with selected storage features (optimal paths are designated as “Active/Optimized” in order to prioritize these paths with selected storage features, C60 L4-18, also see ALUA states described on C58 L9-52).
However, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach wherein the storage feature indications refer to storage features provided by the storage system at the end of the path.
Pabon teaches storage features provided by the storage system at the end of the path (features such as data encryption, which may be provided “natively,” i.e. by the storage system end of the paths, Paragraphs 0295-0296).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the features of Pabon when finding optimal paths in the cited prior art in order to provide functionality, such as encryption, for hosts.
Regarding Claim 2, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring ALUA states for available paths comprises: configuring ALUA states for paths for a given host based on parameters of the host and storage feature of the path required for the host parameters (parameters of the host corresponding to a required latency, such as “low latency” and “encryption,” C69 L37-54 of Pabon, and see ALUA states described on C58 L9-52 of Bunker).
Regarding Claim 4, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the storage features include software features and hardware features of one or more selected from the group consisting of volumes, storage controllers, nodes, and physical storage (a storage controller, which may be “a combination of computer hardware and software,” implements features such as “compressing data, encrypting data, and so forth,” Paragraph 0030 of Pabon).
Regarding Claim 5, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining storage feature information from internal knowledge of the storage system of a storage controller (internal knowledge corresponding to whether a controller can perform storage features such as encryption, compression, etc, Paragraph 0030 of Pabon).
Regarding Claim 6, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the ALUA states for paths comprises: setting priorities of available paths between a host and a volume based on defined feature capabilities of the paths, with higher priority for paths with the feature capability and lower priority for paths without the feature capability (In Pabon, certain functions may be required to be native to storage, Paragraph 0298, and when combined with Bunker, it would be obvious to label paths with the native storage functions to be “Optimized” and the ones that do not as “Non-optimal.” The Optimized paths are considered high priority, while Non-optimized paths are considered lower priority, given priority the plain meaning of “a preferential rating.”).
Regarding Claim 8, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the ALUA states for paths comprises: providing heterogenous feature support for dissimilar systems where a first storage feature is prioritized for a first host behavior and a second storage feature is prioritized for a second host behavior (different users/hosts may request different feature support, resulting in heterogenous feature support, Paragraph 0272 of Pabon).
Regarding Claim 9, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the ALUA states for paths comprises: prioritizing paths with newly enabled storage features (if a storage feature, such as encryption, is newly enabled and requested by an administrator according to Paragraph 0272 of Pabon, this path may obviously be prioritized).
Regarding Claim 10, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring ALUA states for available paths between a host and a volume is further based on I/O performance of the paths (volume corresponding to a volume of a storage system 424 of Fig. 4, the storage feature indications corresponding to “lower latency, better throughput, or less switching infrastructure” for particular paths, C59 L17-39, and optimal paths are designated as “Active/Optimized” in order to prioritize these paths with selected storage features, C60 L4-18, also see ALUA states described on C58 L9-52 of Bunker).
Regarding Claim 12, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: defining different storage controllers (storage controllers 110A of Fig. 2A) for a volume as running on different software levels having different storage features (the controllers may implement various storage tasks, such as encryption, redundancy, etc); and configuring the ALUA states to prioritize certain sets of host commands to the storage software level that supports required features of the host command (different users/hosts may request different feature support, and it would be obvious to direct these requirements to storage controller levels that support required features, Paragraph 0272 of Pabon).
Regarding Claim 13, Bunker teaches a system for configuring asymmetric logical unit access (ALUA) states for paths in a multipath storage system, comprising:
one or more processors and one or more memories configured to provide computer program instructions to the one or more processors to execute the function of components, the components comprising:
a feature indication providing component for providing storage feature indications for paths between a host (host 432 of Fig. 4) and a volume (volume corresponding to a volume of a storage system 424 of Fig. 4, the storage feature indications corresponding to “lower latency, better throughput, or less switching infrastructure” for particular paths, C59 L17-39), and
a state configuring component for configuring ALUA states for available paths between a host and a volume based at least partially on the storage feature indications to direct host operations to one or more paths based on available storage features at the storage system to prioritize paths with selected storage features (optimal paths are designated as “Active/Optimized” in order to prioritize these paths with selected storage features, C60 L4-18, also see ALUA states described on C58 L9-52).
However, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach wherein the storage feature indications refer to storage features provided by the storage system at the end of the path.
Pabon teaches storage features are provided by the storage system end of the path (features such as data encryption, which may be provided “natively,” i.e. by the storage system end of the paths, Paragraphs 0295-0296).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the features of Pabon when finding optimal paths in the cited prior art in order to provide functionality, such as encryption, for hosts.
Regarding Claim 14, the cited prior art teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the state configuring component includes a host configuring component for configuring ALUA states for paths for a given host based on parameters of the host and storage feature of the path required for the host parameters (parameters of the host corresponding to a required latency, such as “low latency” and “encryption,” C69 L37-54 of Pabon, and see ALUA states described on C58 L9-52 of Bunker).
Regarding Claim 16, the cited prior art teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the components further comprise a feature obtaining component for obtaining storage feature information from internal knowledge of the storage system of a storage controller (internal knowledge corresponding to whether a controller can perform storage features such as encryption, compression, etc, Paragraph 0030 of Pabon).
Regarding Claim 18, the cited prior art teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the components are configured to be applied in a single storage cluster to promote use of selected features and mitigate use of other selected features of the single storage cluster (storage cluster of Fig. 2B of Pabon, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding Claim 19, the cited prior art teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the components are configured to be applied in a multi-system high availability storage system to promote use of selected features and mitigate use of other selected features of the multi-system storage system (see highly available storage system 1A of Bunker, C11 L65 – C12 L9).
Claim 20 is the computer program product corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunker et al (US 11,803,453) in view of Pabon et al (US 2024/0289038) and Zhuang et al (US 9,886,195).
Regarding Claim 3, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: adapting a ALUA state to encourage or discourage use of a path by a host in the event that current host accesses result in non-optimal use of a feature.
Zhuang teaches adapting a state to encourage or discourage use of a path by a host in the event that current host accesses result in non-optimal use of a feature (if a host/application is operating using a disk is saturated/has reached a limit of an I/O bandwidth feature, there is a recommendation/ encouragement to change paths as shown on Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the encouraging/discouraging of Zhuang using the ALUA states of the cited prior art in order to perform load balancing.
Regarding Claim 11, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach detecting cases where features are failing to be leveraged due to non-preferred path selection.
Zhuang teaches detecting cases where storage features are failing to be leveraged due to non-preferred path selection (a disk I/O may be saturated at step 304 of Fig. 3 of Zhuang, indicating a different disk I/O bandwidth is failing to be leveraged); and adapting an ALUA state to encourage use of the preferred path by a host (step 308 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the monitoring of Zhuang in the cited prior art in order to perform load balancing.
Regarding Claim 15, the cited prior art teaches the system of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the components further comprise a state adapting component for adapting a ALUA state to encourage or discourage use of a path by a host in the event that current host accesses result in non-optimal use of a feature.
Zhuang teaches comprise a state adapting component for adapting a state to encourage or discourage use of a path by a host in the event that current host accesses result in non-optimal use of a feature (if a host/application is operating using a disk is saturated/has reached a limit of an I/O bandwidth feature, there is a recommendation/ encouragement to change paths as shown on Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the encouraging/discouraging of Zhuang using the ALUA states of the cited prior art in order to perform load balancing.
Regarding Claim 17, the cited prior art teaches the system of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach a monitoring component for monitoring use of paths from a host to a volume including use of defined features detecting cases where features are failing to be leveraged due to non-preferred path selection.
Zhuang teaches monitoring use of paths from a host/application to a volume including use of defined features (shown on Fig. 3, the use of paths is monitored to see if the defined feature of disk I/O bandwidth is reaching a saturation point) detecting cases where features are failing to be leveraged due to non-preferred path selection (a disk I/O may be saturated at step 304 of Fig. 3 of Zhuang, indicating a different disk I/O bandwidth is failing to be leveraged); and adapting an ALUA state to encourage use of the preferred path by a host (step 308 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the monitoring of Zhuang in the cited prior art in order to perform load balancing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunker et al (US 11,803,453) in view of Pabon et al (US 2024/0289038) and Bonar et al (US 2010/0124196).
Regarding Claim 7, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 6, wherein configuring the ALUA states for paths comprises: setting initial priority for I/O paths based on performance metrics of the baths (volume corresponding to a volume of a storage system 424 of Fig. 4, the storage feature indications corresponding to “lower latency, better throughput, or less switching infrastructure” for particular paths, C59 L17-39, and optimal paths are designated as “Active/Optimized” in order to prioritize these paths with selected storage features, C60 L4-18, also see ALUA states described on C58 L9-52 of Bunker).
However, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach adjusting the initial priority based feature indication requirements.
Bonar teaches adjusting initial priority based feature indication requirements (steps 5070 and 5080 of Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the adjusting of Bonar in the cited prior art in order to effectively determine an optimal path.
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
Regarding the independent claims:
On pages 6-7 of the submitted remarks, applicant argues the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest “providing storage feature indications for paths between a host and a volume, wherein the storage feature indications refer to storage features provided by the storage system at the end of the path; and configuring ALUA states for available paths between a host and a volume based at least partially on the storage feature indications.”
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Bunker teaches ALUA states based on at least path latency, path throughput, and switching infrastructure (C59 L17-39). Though Bunker does not teach storage features provided by the storage system at the end of the path, this element is taught by Pabon (features such as data encryption, which may be provided “natively,” i.e. by the storage system end of the paths, Paragraphs 0295-0296). The examiner maintains that using the storage features provided by the storage system at the end of the path for finding optimal paths (as taught by Pabon) would be obvious to combine with the determination of optimal ALUA paths of Bunker.
Regarding Claim 6:
Applicant argues “the Office Action fails to cite to any teaching in Pabon where a lower priority would be given to a path without a requested feature.”
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In Pabon, certain functions may be required to be native to storage (Paragraph 0298). When combined with Bunker, the examiner maintains it would be obvious to label paths with the native storage functions – even if they are unable to be performed via a data path - to be “Optimized” and the ones that do not as “Non-optimal.” The Optimized paths are considered high priority, while Non-optimized paths are considered lower priority, given priority the plain meaning of “a preferential rating.”
For the above reasons, the rejections have been maintained.
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references include:
Subbiah et al (US 11,283,716) teaches Asymmetric Logical Unit Access Path Distribution System.
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have been rejected.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00- 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on (571) 272 - 5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135