DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-5, 8-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2017/0126469 A1), and further in view of Prasad (US 2023/0236936 A1).
For claim 1
Liang teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a storage management system from an application running on a container system, a request for a backup of data associated with the application (see abstract, paragraph [0001], [0005], [0024], and other locations: system is containerized; request is sent from service control system to control plane agent,; view combination of control plane and storage controller as said storage management); determining, by the storage management system and based on receiving the request, an application load level on the application and a system load level on the container system (see abstract, [0005], [0035], figure 1, and other locations: load balancer 108 is part of the service control system; balancing is leveling, which includes determining load levels, for the purpose of balancing them; load balancer services containers (system), storage backup for computing host (system), and the directing of request for applications, thus both system and application levels are determined); [].
Liang does not explicitly “determining, by the storage management system, that at least one of the application load level or the system load level is above a threshold application load level or a threshold system and determining, by the storage management system and based on the application load level and the system load level, to delay the backup”
However, Prasad teaches “determining, by the storage management system, that at least one of the application load level or the system load level is above a threshold application load level or a threshold system and determining, by the storage management system and based on the application load level and the system load level, to delay the backup”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang to include “determining… delay the backup”, as taught by Prasad, because each one of Prasad and Liang teach determining backup start therefore, they are analogous arts and because backup may be unsuccessful when load is too high (see abstract, [0075]).
For claim 2,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the determining to delay the backup is further based on a size of the backup to be performed (see [0039] and other locations).
For claim 3,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the determining the application load level comprises determining a load level on a storage volume associated with the application and provided by the storage management system (see [0005] and other locations: the storage management is on volumes).
For claim 4,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the determining the system load level on the container system comprises determining a load level on a destination storage volume associated with the backup and provided by the storage management system (see [0044] [0018], and other locations: destination container and container as a volume).
For claim 5,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the determining to delay the backup is further based on an application backup tier associated with the application (see location pointed to above: system and applications are separate tiers).
For claim 8,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the request for the backup of the application comprises an input from a user defining a minimum backup frequency; and the determining to delay the backup is further based on the minimum backup frequency (see abstract and other locations: time since last).
For claim 9,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the request for the backup of the application comprises a backup time; and the determining to delay the backup comprises changing the backup time (see [0007] and other locations: backup schedule).
For claim 10,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Liang further teaches the determining the system load level comprises determining a backup schedule associated with an additional application running on the container system (see [0095] and other locations).
For claims 12-17,
the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-5 and 8 respectively. Claims 12-17 are a system.
For claims 18-20,
the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 3-4 respectively. Claims 118-20 are a medium.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2017/0126469 A1), in view of Prasad (US 2023/0236936 A1), and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0117283 A1).
For claim 11,
The combination of Liang and Prasad teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Liang and Prasad does not explicitly teach the determining the application load level and the system load level is based on at least one of a predicted application load level or a predicted system load level
However, Wang teaches the determining the application load level and the system load level is based on at least one of a predicted application load level or a predicted system load level (see abstract and other locations: view expected as predicted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liang and Prasad to include “the determining the application load level … predicted system load level”, as taught by Wang, because each one of Prasad, Liang, and Wang teach determining backup start therefore they are analogous arts and because backing up based on prediction improves scheduling (see title, abstract, paragraph [0108], [0031] , [0093] ,and other locations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights