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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that certain terms aren’t taught by Smith. However the BRI of those terms in light of the applicant’s disclosure and their plain meaning easily map to components disclosed by Smith. For example a “node” is just a port of a bus that is capable of receiving/transmitting (i.e. forwarding) signals to/from whatever is connected to the node, and a “data fabric” is a simply a network/data bus that coordinates transfers of data between nodes on the network. A “coordinator module” is simply software that performs a function, which is what is performing the disclosed functions. A “lock-free multi-queue storage module” is again, just more software that is able to queue incoming requests without implementing a locking protocol, the prior art doesn’t mention locking, as such its “lock-free”. The “key-value store” is just the metadata that holds the address information (i.e. key) to the data (i.e. store).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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) 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2017/0124104).
In regards to claim 5, Smith teaches
A method of writing data in a distributed data storage system comprising a plurality of storage nodes interconnected by a data fabric, each storage node including one or more storage drives, the method comprising the steps of: (Fig. 1, ¶20 teaches that an object can be stored (writing data) in a set of storage devices 119, where each is connected through a storage interface (data fabric). Each connection of the interface (fabric) is considered a node, which in this case can include a storage device.)
allocating, across the plurality of storage nodes, a zone set comprised of individual zones of uniform write unit size, wherein each individual zone is located on a different storage node; (¶23 a zone set consists of zones from individual disks (i.e. different storage nodes), (¶38 teaches each zone width of the zones of a zone set can have an equal size)
receiving a request to write a data segment; (¶38 teaches a request can be received to write data)
resolving, by a coordinator module of a distributed datastore, write conflicts and determining stripe allocation across the plurality of storage nodes; (¶22, fig. 1 teaches a zone set manager creates (i.e. initialized) and maintains zone set information for the zone for a number (plurality) of storage devices in a system. ¶26-27 the system selects a zone set to write new data to and divides the data equally across the selected zone set (i.e. determines stripe allocation). ¶117 further clarifies objects and index information is striped across the constituent zones of the select zone set. ¶37-47 teaches incoming objects can be buffered and timestamped, which is used to resolve conflicts between differing versions of the data.
creating, by the coordinator module and prior to submission of write operations, a stripe- aligned write reservation spanning the plurality of storage nodes, wherein the write reservation includes a storage policy; (¶26, 27, 38 teaches a request can be received to write data and the system can select a first open zone (i.e. create a first reservation), of which a layout digest may also be stored (i.e. storage policy)
submitting write operations from each storage node to its respective storage drives using a lock-free multi-queue storage module to write the data segment and redundant data across the plurality of zones in accordance with the storage policy. (¶27 teaches objects can be encoded with data protection techniques (i.e. redundant data across the plurality of zones), and that the zone set width can be influenced based on the data protection technique chosen). Fig. 2., ¶43-46 teaches commands are generated (submitted) to each zone (node) to be written to the storage device. Segments to be written can be buffered (i.e. multi-queue), and that in step 213 the working index is updated (i.e. the writing is done lock-free)
In regards to claim 6, Smith further teaches
the step of receiving an indication that the amount of data storage space within the first reservation has been filled. (¶38 teaches that if the file won’t fit in a first open zone (i.e. the first reservation has been filled), then a second open zone set can be selected to store the remaining data. )
In regards to claim 7, Smith further teaches
creating a second reservation of data storage space. (¶38 teaches that if the file won’t fit in a first open zone (i.e. the first reservation has been filled), then a second open zone set can be selected to store the remaining data.
In regards to claim 9, Smith further teaches
wherein a storage capacity of each stripe is the storage capacity of one write unit multiplied by a number of zones within a zone set. (¶41 teaches the system divides the segment (i.e. stripe) into equal fragments based on the zone set width, and gives an example of 250MB fragments (one write unit) with 8 total zones, for a total capacity of the segment (stripe) as 2GB (i.e. 250MB x 8).
In regards to claim 10, Smith further teaches
calculating an amount of redundant data that must be written to the stripe in accordance with the storage policy; and writing the redundant data. (¶27 teaches objects can be encoded with data protection techniques, and that the zone set width can be influenced based on the data protection technique chosen)
In regards to claim 11, Smith further teaches
rotating a location of the storage space upon which redundant data is written. (¶73 teaches that superblock snapshots can be written in a round robin fashion.
In regards to claim 12, Smith further teaches
wherein each of the zone sets is comprised of five zones. (¶23 teaches that the number of zones can be set to any number of different disks that can be accessed in parallel.)
In regards to claim 13, Smith further teaches
wherein the uniform amount of storage space is 256 megabytes. (¶38 explicitly states the each zone can be 256MB)
In regards to claim 14, Smith further teaches
wherein the storage policy is a data protection scheme. (¶27 teaches objects can be encoded with data protection techniques, and that the zone set width can be influenced based on the data protection technique chosen)
In regards to claim 15, Smith further teaches
wherein the data protection scheme is at least one of erasure encoding and mirroring. (¶27 teaches the data protection scheme can be erasure coding)
In regards to claim 16, Smith further teaches
the step of decomposing the zone set. (¶33 teaches the consistent restoration of files/objects of the file system)
In regards to claim 17, Smith teaches
creating, by a coordinator module of a distributed datastore, a write reservation for a data segment to be written across zones located on different storage nodes;
receiving a data segment; (¶26, 27, 38 teaches a request can be received to write data and the system can select a first open zone set (i.e. create a first reservation), of which a layout digest may also be stored (i.e. storage policy)
submitting write operations from each storage node to its respective storage drives through a lock-free multi-queue storage module and writing the data segment and redundant data into the write reservation in accordance with a data storage policy scheme; writing location information for the data segment into a distributed coherent key- value store pair; and transacting the key-value pair by performing an atomic transaction that commits the location information. (¶26-27 the system selects a zone set to write new data to and divides the data equally across the selected zone set (i.e. determines stripe allocation). ¶117 further clarifies objects and index information is striped across the constituent zones of the select zone set. and that the zone set width can be influenced based on the data protection technique chosen). Fig. 2., ¶43-46 teaches commands are generated (submitted) to each zone (node) to be written to the storage device. Segments to be written can be buffered (i.e. multi-queue), and that after a segment is written, in step 213 the working index (key-pair) is updated (i.e. an atomic transaction that commits the location information, that is lock-free). (¶92 teaches the use of a segment key, which defines the object identifier, timestamp, and a segment identifier which corresponds to location information of the corresponding object/data that was written)
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2017/0124104) in view of Lary (US 8,335,966)
In regards to claim 18, Smith may not explicitly teach
wherein each zone set comprises five zones distributed across five different storage nodes, and wherein data and redundant data are written using a 3+2 erasure encoding scheme such that parity locations are rotated across the zones for successive stripes.
However, Lary in C3:8-49 teaches that N data disks can be used with two parity disk (i.e. 3+2) and that the parity can be rotated between the disks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the protection scheme as taught by Lary into the system of Smith. One could have incorporated this modification with a predictable amount of success, especially since Smith already mentions some protections schemes, but just doesn’t include the details of Lary. One would have been motivated to perform this modification as it increases the reliability of the system.
Conclusion
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 JASON W BLUST whose telephone number is (571)272-6302. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8:30 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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.
/JASON W BLUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights