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 . Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 16-19 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.
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 1-3 and 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goaln et al (hereinafter Golan) US Publication No 20200099721 in view of Veeraswamy et al (hereinafter Veeraswamy) US Patent No 10776317.
As per claim 1, Goaln teaches:
A method for transmitting data, the method comprising:
creating a shared hash set for sharing pattern data between a protocol layer and an input/output (IO) path layer, wherein the shared hash set stores pattern keys and pattern content for use in pattern detection;
(Fig. 1, 6 and Paragraphs [0022] and [0024] and [0042], wherein the upper layer comprising the operating system layer is the protocol layer and IO path monitoring software is the I/O path layer and [0144] and [0191], wherein IO stream hash is compared against data pattern)
receiving, by the protocol layer, a pattern data block from a client, wherein the pattern data block comprises the pattern data and non-pattern data;
(Paragraphs [0059], [0144] and [0191], wherein pattern watching to record in the database is the pattern data and wherein pattern not matching the one in the database is non-pattern data)
transmitting, by the protocol layer, the pattern data block to the IO path layer;
(Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0051] and [0135] and [0144] and [0148], wherein IO stream are validated and the data pattern is evaluated and sent the underlying storage)
Goaln does not explicitly teach and writing the pattern data block to a common block file system (CBFS) layer, however in analogous art data analysis, Veeraswamy teaches:
and writing the pattern data block to a common block file system (CBFS) layer.
(Column 1, lines 27-40 and Column 10, lines 14-34 and column 12, 60-63)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Goaln and Veeraswamy by incorporating the teaching of Veeraswamy into the method of Goaln. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Veeraswamy into the system of Goaln for the purpose of managing data block hierarchy.
As per claim 2, Goaln and Veeraswamy teach:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: reading the pattern data block from the CBFS layer to the IO path layer;
(Fig. 1 and Column 5, lines 52—67 and Column 6, lines 1-32 and Column 9, lines 49-67 and column 10, lines 1-4)( Veeraswamy)
transmitting the pattern data block from the IO path layer to the protocol layer;
(Fig. 1 and Column 5, lines 25-67 and Column 6, lines 1-32 and Column 9, lines 49-67 and column 10, lines 1-4)( Veeraswamy)
and sending, by the protocol layer, the pattern data block to the client.
(Fig. 2 and Column 5, lines 25-67 and Column 6, lines 1-32, wherein the reposting application is the client)( Veeraswamy)
As per claim 3, Goaln and Veeraswamy teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein transmitting, by the protocol layer, the pattern data block to the IO path layer comprises: transmitting the pattern data block using an IO list,
wherein for the pattern data, the IO list carries the pattern keys and the pattern content for use in recognizing a pattern and expanding the pattern into an IO buffer;
(Column 9, lines 49-67 and Column 10, lines 1-3)( Veeraswamy)
and for the non-pattern data, the IO list carries a data buffer.
(Paragraphs [0058], wherein the whitelist of pattern is non-pattern list)( Goaln) and (Column 9, lines 49-67)( Veeraswamy)
Claims 11-13 are device claims respectively corresponding to method claims 1-3 and they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-3.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goaln and Veeraswamy in view of Fortier et al (hereinafter Fortier) US Patent No 8560552.
As per claim 4, Goaln and Veeraswamy teach pattern and non-pattern data but do not explicitly teach doubly linked table, however in analogous art of pattern matching, Fortier teaches:
wherein the IO list is a doubly linked table which comprises the pattern data and the non-pattern data.
(Abstract and Column 2, lines 35-59 and Column 5, lines 3-67 and column 15, lines 7-19)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Goaln and Veeraswamy and Fortier by incorporating the teaching of Fortier into the method of Goaln and Veeraswamy. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Fortier into the system of Goaln and Veeraswamy for the purpose of quickly retrieving data.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goaln and Veeraswamy in view of Bassov et al (hereinafter Bassov) US Patent No 10838634.
As per claim 5, Goaln and Veeraswamy not explicitly teach wherein the IO list carries the pattern key in a write path, the pattern key being converted to corresponding metadata in an indirect block, however in analogous art of pattern matching, Bassov teaches:
wherein the IO list carries the pattern key in a write path, the pattern key being converted to corresponding metadata in an indirect block.
(Column 8, lines 1-20 and 55-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Goaln and Veeraswamy and Bassov by incorporating the teaching of Bassov into the method of Goaln and Veeraswamy. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Bassov into the system of Goaln and Veeraswamy for the purpose of managing block allocation and maintaining block count.
Claim 14 is a device claim corresponding to method claim 5 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goaln and Veeraswamy in view of Yu et al (hereinafter Yu) US Patent No 10853257.
As per claim 6, Goaln and Veeraswamy not explicitly teach wherein the IO list carries the pattern content in a read path, the pattern content being used as a pattern identifier in a message reply to a read request, however in analogous art of pattern matching, Yu teaches:
wherein the IO list carries the pattern content in a read path, the pattern content being used as a pattern identifier in a message reply to a read request.
(Column 1, lines 22-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Goaln and Veeraswamy and Yu by incorporating the teaching of Yu into the method of Goaln and Veeraswamy. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Yu into the system of Goaln and Veeraswamy for the purpose of indicating pattern status corresponding to I/O request.
Claim 15 is a device claim corresponding to method claim 6 and it is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 11/21/25