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 .
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/8/25 has been received and entered. Claims 1-11, and 13-21 are pending. Claim 12 has been canceled and claim 21 is non -elected but must be canceled in reply to this office action.
Specification
The first page of specification includes missing application numbers, please provide an updated sheet with those numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044.
As to claim 1, Fernando teaches A distributed, scale-out data storage system comprising:
at least three storage nodes (see Fernando paragraphs [0029]-[0030]. Fernando shows PaaS nodes, which execute on computing devices. IN paragraphs [0029]-[0030], the computing devices are described as including memory and storage. The computing devices may also be servers), each respective storage node of the at least three storage nodes, comprising:
a respective storage server configured to connect to a storage client over a network interface (see Fernando paragraph [0029]. The computing devices executing the PaaS nodes may be servers. It is noted that all PaaS nodes may be in communication with other nodes, paragraph [0028]);
a respective target server connected to a respective plurality of storage drives (see Fernando paragraphs [0029]-[0030]. The PaaS nodes may comprise servers. The PaaS nodes may also comprise storage devices, paragraph [0030]);
one or more processors (see Fernando paragraph [0030]); and
a respective memory (see Fernando paragraph [0030]), wherein the memory has a plurality of logic modules and a plurality of libraries stored thereon and executable by the one or more processors to perform data storage management operations (see paragraph [0026]. The PaaS nodes provide databases) ;
a coordinator program (see Fernando paragraph [0028]. The PaaS nodes may include a coordinator module, no specific function or descriptor is attached to this coordinator as claimed); and
a data fabric (see Fernando paragraphs [0026]-[0027], no specific definition or function claimed relate to “data fabric”),
wherein:
a first node of the at least three storage nodes is a load balancer node, the first node comprising a first storage server and a first target server, the first target server configured to connect to the storage client over the network interface (see Fernando paragraphs [0026]-[0027]. All nodes may have node balancers) and
a second node of the at least three storage nodes is a deployment node, the second node comprising a second storage server and a second target server, the second target server configured to connect to the storage client over the network interface (see Fernando paragraph [0027]. All nodes may serve as deployment nodes).
As to claim 10, Fernando discloses The distributed, scale-out data storage system of claim 1, wherein the coordinator module is configured to perform one or more of the following functions:
evaluate a write operation to avoid a write collision;
manage a set of read permissions;
manage a set of write permissions;
allocate data storage locations on the storage server (paragraph 0069);
determine a data redundancy scheme;
coordinate a data stripe length;
coordinate a data stripe location;
support a lock-free write operation; track a data storage location; or perform data compaction.
Fernando in paragraph 0063X teaches lock mechanism for addressing request.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Shatsky et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0414102 (hereinafter “Shatsky”).
As to claim 2, Fernando does not teach The distributed, scale-out data storage system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of storage drives are non-volatile memory express (NVMe) flash drives.
Shatsky at paragraph [0020] teaches a scale-out distributed data storage system. Additionally, Shatsky teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the plurality of storage drives are non-volatile memory express (NVMe) flash drives (i.e., “the storage data servers 152 of the storage nodes 140 are configured to consolidate the capacity of the storage device arrays 160 (e.g., HDDs, SSDs, PCIe or NVMe flash cards, etc.) of the storage nodes” Para. [0027]).
Both the Fernando reference and the Shatsky reference are in the field of endeavor of distributed data storage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed storage system disclosed in Fernando with the storage drives comprising express NVMEs as taught by Shatsky to facilitate in efficient data access in a distributed system.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Wu U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0104409 (hereinafter “Wu”).
As to claim 3, Fernando does not teach: wherein the storage server comprises:
a presentation module;
a filesystem library;
a datastore library; and
a transport library.
Wu teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the storage server is further comprised of: a presentation module (i.e., “The ICA protocol allows presentation at the client device 120 of software executing remotely (e.g., at a server 150)” Para. [0022]); a filesystem library (i.e., “The data storage 166 stores these authentication policies, e.g., using a local database system, flat file system, or other data organization scheme” Para. [0021]); a datastore library (i.e., “The data storage 166 stores these authentication policies, e.g., using a local database system, flat file system, or other data organization scheme” Para. [0021]); and a transport library (i.e., “a client device 120 may exchange information over the network 104 using protocols in accordance with…an OSI layer-4 transport protocol such as the User Datagram Protocol (“UDP”) or the Transmission Control Protocol (“TCP”)…the client device 120 is a thin-client…allows presentation at the client device 120 of software executing remotely (e.g., at a server 150)” Para. [0022]).
Both Fernando and the Wu reference are in the field of endeavor of distributed data storage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed storage system disclosed in Fernando with the use of libraries to implement a file system in database, a transport protocol and a protocol allowing presentation as taught by Wu to facilitate proper data handling in a distributed system (See Wu at paragraph [0003]).
As to claim 4, Fernando teaches a server that is able to store data does not teach:
wherein the target server is further comprised of: a storage module; and a transport library.
However, Wu teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the target server is further comprised of: a storage module (i.e., “The data storage 166 stores these authentication policies, e.g., using a local database system, flat file system, or other data organization scheme” Para. [0021]); and a transport library (i.e., “a client device 120 may exchange information over the network 104 using protocols in accordance with…an OSI layer-4 transport protocol such as the User Datagram Protocol (“UDP”) or the Transmission Control Protocol (“TCP”)…the client device 120 is a thin-client…allows presentation at the client device 120 of software executing remotely (e.g., at a server 150)” Para. [0022]).
The motivation to combine statement, combining Fernando with Wu reference, provided in the rejection of claim 3 above, is applicable to dependent claim 4 as well.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Fernando teaches coordinator module as shown in claim 1 but does not teach:
a transport library.
However, Wu teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the coordinator program is further comprised of…a transport library (i.e., “a client device 120 may exchange information over the network 104 using protocols in accordance with…an OSI layer-4 transport protocol such as the User Datagram Protocol (“UDP”) or the Transmission Control Protocol (“TCP”)…the client device 120 is a thin-client…allows presentation at the client device 120 of software executing remotely (e.g., at a server 150)” Para. [0022]).
The motivation to combine statement, combining Fernando with Wu reference, provided in the rejection of claim 3 above, is applicable to dependent claim 5 as well.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Freilich et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0019367 (hereinafter “Freilich”).
As to claim 6, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. While Fernando discloses utilizing containers in distributed storage, Fernando does not disclose:
wherein one or more of the plurality of logic modules or the plurality of libraries forms a Kubernetes pod.
Freilich teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein one or more of the plurality of logic modules or the plurality of libraries forms a Kubernetes pod (i.e., “The systems described above can support the execution of a wide array of software applications. Such software applications can be deployed in a variety of ways, including container-based deployment models. Containerized applications may be managed using a variety of tools. For example, containerized applications may be managed using Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, and others.” Para. [0192])
Both Fernando and the Freilich are in the field of endeavor of distributed data storage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed storage system utilizing containers as disclosed in Fernando with the managing of containers using Kubernetes as taught by Freilich to facilitate in data storage management in a distributed system.
As to claim 8, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. While Fernando discloses managing storage containers in distributed storage, Fernando does not disclose:
wherein the coordinator module further comprises a coordinator shard, which is updated by the coordinator module.
Freilich teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the coordinator module further comprises a coordinator shard, which is updated by the coordinator module (i.e., “Usage of the term stripe refers to the same set of shards as a segment and includes how the shards are distributed along with redundancy or parity information in accordance with some embodiments.” Para. [0106]).
The motivation to combine statement, combining the Fernando reference with the Freilich reference, provided in the rejection of claim 6 above, is applicable to dependent claim 8 as well.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Lucas in further view of Coleman et al. US Patent No. 9747039.
As to claim 7, Fernando does not specifically disclose wherein the target module coordinates access to individual storage drives within the plurality of storage drives.
Coleman et al. discloses wherein the target module coordinates access to individual storage drives within the plurality of storage drives (col 19, lines 20-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernando with Coleman et al. to specifically target specific storage drivers because it provides customization and secure access.
As to claim 11, Fernando does not specifically teach wherein the storage drives further comprise a disk drive.
Coleman et al. discloses wherein the storage drives further comprise a disk drive (col 19, lines 20-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernando with Coleman et al. to specifically target specific storage drivers because it provides customization and secure access.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Lucas in further view of Reuter U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0214314 (hereinafter “Reuter”).
As to claim 9, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. While Fernando discloses coordinating/managing a distributed storage, Fernando does not disclose:
wherein the coordinator module is further comprised of one or more sub-coordinator modules operating in a hierarchical fashion.
However, Reuter teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the coordinator module is further comprised of one or more sub-coordinator modules operating in a hierarchical fashion (i.e., “hierarchical coordinator routines…within the context of a distributed mass-storage device” Para. [0025], “the hierarchical control logic of the present invention may include control-logic levels, or coordinators, corresponding to these different hierarchical levels” Para. [0090] and “each hierarchical coordinator routine managing data access and data consistency at the hierarchical level represented by the hierarchical data-structure level with which the hierarchical coordinator routine is associated.” Claim 14)
Both the Fernando reference and the Reuter reference are in the field of endeavor of distributed data storage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coordination/management of a distributed storage system disclosed in Fernando with the use of a hierarchical based coordinator to manage a distributed data storage as taught by Reuter to facilitate in managing complex distributed systems (See Reuter at paragraphs [0002]-[0003]).
Claims 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Wu U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0104409 (hereinafter “Wu”) and further in view Freilich et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0019367 (hereinafter “Freilich”).
As to claim 13, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 3 have been addressed above. While Fernando discloses managing storage containers in distributed storage, Fernando does not disclose:
wherein the datastore library implements a key-value store having a plurality of key-spaces, each key-space having one or more data structure shards.
Freilich teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the datastore library implements a key-value store having a plurality of key-spaces (i.e., “in embodiments, logical elements could be, for example, files, directories, object buckets, individual objects, delineated parts of files or objects, other forms of key-value pair databases” Para. [0103]), each key-space having one or more data structure shards (i.e., “Usage of the term stripe refers to the same set of shards as a segment and includes how the shards are distributed along with redundancy or parity information in accordance with some embodiments.” Para. [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernando as modified with Freilich to specifically have a certain data type as it is well known in the art and helps organizes data.
As to claim 15, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 3 have been addressed above. Fernando as modified does not teach:
wherein the datastore library includes one or more of an erasure encoding module, a compression module, an encryption module, a permissions module, a redundancy scheme module, a data stripe length module, a lock-free write module, or a data compaction module.
Shatsky teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the datastore library includes one or more of an erasure encoding module (i.e., “In a distributed storage environment, the storage control systems 150 of the storage nodes 140 are configured to communicate in a cooperative manner to perform functions such as…inline data compression/decompression, data deduplication, thin provisioning, and data protection functions such as data replication, snapshot, and data protection and resiliency schemes based on data striping and/or parity (e.g., erasure coding, RAID, etc.), and other types of data management functions, depending on the system configuration.” Para. [0023])
Both Fernando as modified reference and the Shatsky reference are in the field of endeavor of distributed data storage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed storage system disclosed in Fernando with the utilization of data compression, data stripping and erasure coding in a distributed storage system as taught by Shatsky to facilitate in data storage management in a distributed system.
As to claim 16, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 3 have been addressed above. Fernando as modified not disclose:
wherein the erasure encoding module is configured to perform a distributed erasure encoding process on data stored on one or more of the plurality of storage drives.
Shatsky teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the erasure encoding module is configured to perform a distributed erasure encoding process on data stored on one or more of the plurality of storage drives (i.e., “In a distributed storage environment, the storage control systems 150 of the storage nodes 140 are configured to communicate in a cooperative manner to perform functions such as…inline data compression/decompression, data deduplication, thin provisioning, and data protection functions such as data replication, snapshot, and data protection and resiliency schemes based on data striping and/or parity (e.g., erasure coding, RAID, etc.), and other types of data management functions, depending on the system configuration.” Para. [0023])
The motivation to combine statement, combining the Fernando as modified with Shatsky, provided in the rejection of claim 15 above, is applicable to dependent claim 16 as well.
As to claim 17, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 3 have been addressed above. Fernando does not disclose:
wherein the datastore library is configured to perform a lock-free write function.
Freilich teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the datastore library is configured to perform a lock-free write function (i.e., “It should be appreciated that since authorities' 168 partitions are disjoint, there is no need for distributed locking to execute client and writes or to perform background functions.” Para. [0127]).
The motivation to combine statement, combining Fernando with Freilich, provided in the rejection of claim 6 above, is applicable to dependent claim 17 as well.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Wu U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0104409 (hereinafter “Wu”) and in view Freilich et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0019367 (hereinafter “Freilich”), and further in view of Shatsky et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0414102 (hereinafter “Shatsky”).
As to claim 14, all of the particulars of claims 1, 3 and 13 have been addressed above. Fernando as modified does not disclose:
wherein the one or more data structure shards include a b+ tree shard.
Shatsky teaches the claim limitation reciting, wherein the one or more data structure shards include a b+ tree shard (i.e., “the storage node 200 comprises…a B+ tree management module” Para. [0031]).
The motivation to combine statement, combining Fernando as modified with Shatsky to show a B-tree data structure because it is well known the art that data storage structures can vary and include different types for better integration and efficient storage of data.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando US Pub. No. 20140196044 in view of Wu U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0104409 (hereinafter “Wu”) and further in view Bulkowski et al. (US Pub. 20180004777).
As to claim 18, Fernando as modified does not teach The distributed, scale-out data storage system of claim 3, wherein the datastore library is configured to perform a read function.
Bulkowski et al. teaches wherein the datastore library is configured to perform a read function (See paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernando as modified with Bulkowski et al. to show that a library has a read function as it is well known in the art.
As to claim 19, Fernando as modified does not teach The distributed, scale-out data storage system of claim 3, wherein the datastore library is configured to determine when one or more of the plurality of storage drives has reached a write capacity threshold.
Bulkowski et al. teaches wherein the datastore library is configured to determine when one or more of the plurality of storage drives has reached a write capacity threshold (See paragraph 0044-0045, and 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernando as modified with Bulkowski et al. to include storage capacity indicators because it provides for way to keep storage available and prevent data loss.
As to claim 20, Fernando as modified does not teach The distributed, scale-out data storage system of claim 3 wherein the datastore library is one of an object store database or a NoSQL database.
Bulkowski et al. teaches wherein the datastore library is one of an object store database or a NoSQL database (See paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fernando as modified with Bulkowski et al. to include NoSQL type data storage as it is well known technology in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 for list of completed relevant cited prior art.
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 Neveen Abel-Jalil whose telephone number is (571)270-0474. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152 November 29, 2025
Prosecution Insights