DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of application on 22-APRIL-2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13-MAY-2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Symbol “230” in the bottom right of Fig. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0039], all mentions of “log manager 170” should be “log manager 160” for consistency.
In [0039], line 6, “bookmark 180b is” should read “bookmark 180b” (remove “is”)
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shveidel et al., U.S. Patent No. 11068199 (hereinafter “Shveidel”) in view of
Yang et al., U.S. Pub No. 20150348306 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1: Shveidel teaches A method of tracking metadata changes, comprising:
After receiving a first plurality of metadata changes into a plurality of in-memory buckets, destaging the first plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a first size in a first persistent tablet (Col. 11 line 54 to Col. 12 line 21, Shveidel teaches a process of writing metadata changes to a first set of data containers, before they become full. And that upon being filled, switching the first set of data containers with a second set of data containers, such that one that is being filled is active and the other set is destaging. Furthermore, in Col. 14, lines 24-41, Shveidel teaches destaging involves writing the metadata changes into the storage array in a particular size chunks. Furthermore, in Col. 1 lines 7-19, Shveidel teaches that conventional storage systems store metadata in a journal, before being subsequently stored in a persistent storage of a storage array. The combination of the teachings covers the claimed receiving a first plurality of metadata changes into a plurality of in-memory buckets and destaging the first plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a first size in a first persistent tablet.).
Receiving a second plurality of metadata changes into the plurality of in-memory buckets; and (Col. 12 lines 22-30, Shveidel teaches receiving subsequent metadata changes to a second set of data containers.)
The second size being smaller than the first size (Col. 14 lines 38-41, Shveidel teaches that although a constant 2MB chunk was described as the size of chunk to write metadata changes into the storage array with, blocks of various sizes can be used. While not explicitly described as a second size being smaller than a first size, with the teaching of writing into blocks of varying sizes, a second size being smaller than a first size is an obvious embodiment.)
Shveidel does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to receiving an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full, destaging the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet
However, Yang teaches in response to receiving an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full, destaging the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet ([0034-0036], Yang teaches a system which includes a data store, where only a maximum number of primitive blocks can be stored, and that when a new primitive block is needed while there is already a maximum number in the data store, one of the open primitive blocks can be flushed before they are completely full).
Shveidel and Yang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, flushing/destaging schemes for temporary storage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Shveidel and Yang to achieve the result of the method of tracking metadata changes, including the receiving and destaging a first plurality of metadata changes into persistent buckets of a first size, and receiving a second plurality of metadata changes, which are destaged before the buckets are full, into persistent buckets of a second size smaller than a first size.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide space to create new blocks as discussed in Yang [0034].
Examiner notes that although the limitations are fully mapped in the rejection, the limitations of “destaging the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet, the second size being smaller than the first size” are contingent upon “in response to receiving an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full”, which is not positively recited. The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims with limitations that are contingent upon conditions which are not positively recited do not require those limitations, and therefore the limitation is not required in this claim (see MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 12: Shveidel teaches a computerized apparatus, comprising control circuitry that includes a set of processors coupled to memory, the control circuitry constructed and arranged to: (Col. 7 lines 1-8, Shveidel teaches that a system that executes the processes of the invention may be executed by one or more processors and one or more memory architectures.)
After receipt of a first plurality of metadata changes into a plurality of in-memory buckets, destage the first plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a first size in a first persistent tablet (Col. 11 line 54 to Col. 12 line 21, Shveidel teaches a process of writing metadata changes to a first set of data containers, before they become full. And that upon being filled, switching the first set of data containers with a second set of data containers, such that one that is being filled is active and the other set is destaging. Furthermore, in Col. 14, lines 24-41, Shveidel teaches destaging involves writing the metadata changes into the storage array in a particular size chunks. Furthermore, in Col. 1 lines 7-19, Shveidel teaches that conventional storage systems store metadata in a journal, before being subsequently stored in a persistent storage of a storage array. The combination of the teachings covers the claimed receiving a first plurality of metadata changes into a plurality of in-memory buckets and destaging the first plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a first size in a first persistent tablet.).
Receive a second plurality of metadata changes into the plurality of in-memory buckets; and (Col. 12 lines 22-30, Shveidel teaches receiving subsequent metadata changes to a second set of data containers.)
The second size being smaller than the first size (Col. 14 lines 38-41, Shveidel teaches that although a constant 2MB chunk was described as the size of chunk to write metadata changes into the storage array with, blocks of various sizes can be used. While not explicitly described as a second size being smaller than a first size, with the teaching of writing into blocks of varying sizes, a second size being smaller than a first size is an obvious embodiment.)
Shveidel does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to receipt of an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full, destage the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet
However, Yang teaches in response to receipt of an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full, destage the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet ([0034-0036], Yang teaches a system which includes a data store, where only a maximum number of primitive blocks can be stored, and that when a new primitive block is needed while there is already a maximum number in the data store, one of the open primitive blocks can be flushed before they are completely full).
Shveidel and Yang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, flushing/destaging schemes for temporary storage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Shveidel and Yang to achieve the result of the apparatus that receives and destages a first plurality of metadata changes into persistent buckets of a first size, and receives a second plurality of metadata changes, which are destaged before the buckets are full, into persistent buckets of a second size smaller than a first size.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide space to create new blocks as discussed in Yang [0034].
Regarding claim 13: Shveidel teaches A computer program product including a set of non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions which, when executed by control circuitry of a computerized apparatus, cause the computerized apparatus to perform a method of tracking metadata changes, the method comprising: (Col. 2, lines 10-20, Shveidel teaches that an implementation of the disclosure is a computer program product on a computer readable medium, with instructions that perform the steps of the disclosure.)
After receiving a first plurality of metadata changes into a plurality of in-memory buckets, destaging the first plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a first size in a first persistent tablet (Col. 11 line 54 to Col. 12 line 21, Shveidel teaches a process of writing metadata changes to a first set of data containers, before they become full. And that upon being filled, switching the first set of data containers with a second set of data containers, such that one that is being filled is active and the other set is destaging. Furthermore, in Col. 14, lines 24-41, Shveidel teaches destaging involves writing the metadata changes into the storage array in a particular size chunks. Furthermore, in Col. 1 lines 7-19, Shveidel teaches that conventional storage systems store metadata in a journal, before being subsequently stored in a persistent storage of a storage array. The combination of the teachings covers the claimed receiving a first plurality of metadata changes into a plurality of in-memory buckets and destaging the first plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a first size in a first persistent tablet.).
Receiving a second plurality of metadata changes into the plurality of in-memory buckets; and (Col. 12 lines 22-30, Shveidel teaches receiving subsequent metadata changes to a second set of data containers.)
The second size being smaller than the first size (Col. 14 lines 38-41, Shveidel teaches that although a constant 2MB chunk was described as the size of chunk to write metadata changes into the storage array with, blocks of various sizes can be used. While not explicitly described as a second size being smaller than a first size, with the teaching of writing into blocks of varying sizes, a second size being smaller than a first size is an obvious embodiment.)
Shveidel does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to receiving an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full, destaging the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet
However, Yang teaches in response to receiving an early-destage request prior to the plurality of in-memory buckets becoming full, destaging the second plurality of metadata changes to persistent buckets of a second size in a second persistent tablet ([0034-0036], Yang teaches a system which includes a data store, where only a maximum number of primitive blocks can be stored, and that when a new primitive block is needed while there is already a maximum number in the data store, one of the open primitive blocks can be flushed before they are completely full).
Shveidel and Yang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, flushing/destaging schemes for temporary storage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Shveidel and Yang to achieve the result of the method of tracking metadata changes, including the receiving and destaging a first plurality of metadata changes into persistent buckets of a first size, and receiving a second plurality of metadata changes, which are destaged before the buckets are full, into persistent buckets of a second size smaller than a first size.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide space to create new blocks as discussed in Yang [0034].
Prior Art Noted by Examiner
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cao et al., U.S. Pub. No 20200050480, teaches a system which aggregates change requests into a queue, which use a timeout to immediately flush a queue to avoid performance bottlenecks.
Cousins, U.S. Pub. No 20050257083, teaches a buffer that may be committed before it is full, when there are not enough writes to it to fill it up quickly enough.
Durgin et al., U.S. Pub. No. 20220147265, teaches a system which manages metadata objects, where a first metadata object can be smaller than a second metadata object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for allowability of claim 2 are that the prior art of record, including the references cited above, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the recited combination as a whole; including the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of in-memory buckets is part of a first metadata log (MDL), and wherein the method further comprises: destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets of a second MDL, wherein the early destage request is issued in response to destaging the third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL. The closest prior art of record is Shveidel, which teaches a memory system which writes metadata changes to a metadata log, and can be understood to obviously destage a third plurality of metadata changes, but does not appear to disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of in-memory buckets is part of a first metadata log (MDL), and wherein the method further comprises: destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets of a second MDL, wherein the early destage request is issued in response to destaging the third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL.
As such, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above-recited combinations for at least the reasons specified.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Shveidel and Yang teaches all limitations of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Shveidel further teaches wherein the plurality of in-memory buckets is part of a first metadata log (MDL), and (Col. 14 lines 7-14, Shveidel teaches writing one or more metadata changes to a metadata log.)
Shveidel further teaches destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets (Col. 13 line 49 to Col. 14 line 6, Shveidel teaches that the process after one of the two sets of data containers is full, is to switch the sets to destage the full container, and to continue accepting subsequent metadata changes. While not explicit, it is obvious that continuing this switching means that a third plurality of metadata changes can be eventually destaged to a third persistent chunk.)
Shveidel does not appear to disclose the early destage request is issued in response to destaging the third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL.
Other prior art teaches a second MDL, in which blocks may be destaged early from, but do not appear to disclose the destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets.
Therefore, there is no teaching or motivation that would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention which issues an early destage request in response to destaging a third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL, and a rejection for anticipation by Shveidel or obviousness over Shveidel in view of the other prior art would be improper.
Claims 3-11 depend upon claim 2 and inherit these limitations of issuing an early destage request in response to destaging a third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL, and are allowable for the same reasons as claim 2.
The reasons for allowability of claim 2 are that the prior art of record, including the references cited above, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the recited combination as a whole; including the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of in-memory buckets is part of a first metadata log (MDL), and wherein the method further comprises: destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets of a second MDL, wherein the early destage request is issued in response to destaging the third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL. The closest prior art of record is Shveidel, which teaches a memory system which writes metadata changes to a metadata log, and can be understood to obviously destage a third plurality of metadata changes, but does not appear to disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of in-memory buckets is part of a first metadata log (MDL), and wherein the method further comprises: destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets of a second MDL, wherein the early destage request is issued in response to destaging the third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL.
As such, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above-recited combinations for at least the reasons specified.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Shveidel and Yang teaches all limitations of claim 13, from which claim 14 depends.
Shveidel further teaches wherein the plurality of in-memory buckets is part of a first metadata log (MDL), and (Col. 14 lines 7-14, Shveidel teaches writing one or more metadata changes to a metadata log.)
Shveidel further teaches destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets (Col. 13 line 49 to Col. 14 line 6, Shveidel teaches that the process after one of the two sets of data containers is full, is to switch the sets to destage the full container, and to continue accepting subsequent metadata changes. While not explicit, it is obvious that continuing this switching means that a third plurality of metadata changes can be eventually destaged to a third persistent chunk.)
Shveidel does not appear to disclose the early destage request is issued in response to destaging the third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL.
Other prior art teaches a second MDL, in which blocks may be destaged early from, but do not appear to disclose the destaging to a third persistent tablet a third plurality of metadata changes received by in-memory buckets.
Therefore, there is no teaching or motivation that would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention which issues an early destage request in response to destaging a third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL, and a rejection for anticipation by Shveidel or obviousness over Shveidel in view of the other prior art would be improper.
Claims 15-20 depend upon claim 14 and inherit these limitations of issuing an early destage request in response to destaging a third plurality of metadata changes of the second MDL, and are allowable for the same reasons as claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN HUNG PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6333. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00 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, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at 571-270-5935. 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.
/K.H.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2133
/ROCIO DEL MAR PEREZ-VELEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2133