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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang (US 2017/0126469 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); and determining, by the storage management system and based on the application load level and the system load level, whether to initiate the backup (see [0024], [0035], and other locations: load balancer requests to backup means load is balanced before request).
For claim 2, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the determining whether to initiate the backup is further based on a size of the backup to be performed (see [0039] and other locations).
For claim 3, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and 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, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and 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, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the determining whether to initiate 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, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the request for the backup of the application comprises an input from a user defining a minimum backup frequency; and the determining whether to initiate the backup is further based on the minimum backup frequency (see abstract and other locations: time since last).
For claim 9, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the request for the backup of the application comprises a backup time; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises changing the backup time (see [0007] and other locations: backup schedule).
For claim 10, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and 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 1and 3-4 respectively. Claims 18-20 are a medium.
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 6-10 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 Ashokkumar (US 2020/0042400 A1).
For claim 6
Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Liang does not explicitly the determining the application load level comprises determining that the application load level is above a threshold load level; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises determining, based on the determining the application load level is above the threshold load level, to delay the backup
However, Ashokkumar teaches the determining the application load level comprises determining that the application load level is above a threshold load level; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises determining, based on the determining the application load level is above the threshold load level, to delay the backup (see abstract, [0056], and other locations)
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 “the determining … delay the backup”, as taught by Ashokkumar, because each one of Ashokkumar and Liang teach determining backup start therefore they are analogous arts and because backup is always delayed when a decision about the backup needs to be made first (see abstract, [0056], and other locations).
For claim 7
Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further 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);
Ashokkumar teaches 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);. and determining, by the storage management system and based on the application load level and the system load level, whether to initiate the backup (see [0024], [0035], and other locations: load balancer requests to backup means load is balanced before request) the determining the application load level and the system load level comprises determining that the application load level is below a first threshold load level and determining that the system load level is below a second threshold load level; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises determining, based on the determining the application load level is below the first threshold load level and the system load level is below the second threshold load level, to initiate the backup (see title, abstract, paragraph [0108], [0031] ,[0093] ,and other locations)
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 “the determining … the backup”, as taught by Ashokkumar, because each one of Ashokkumar and Liang teach determining backup start therefore they are analogous arts and because the motivational reasons specified in claim 6 rejection.
For claim 8
Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Liang does not explicitly the request for the backup of the application comprises an input from a user defining a minimum backup frequency; and the determining whether to initiate the backup is further based on the minimum backup frequency
However, Ashokkumar teaches the request for the backup of the application comprises an input from a user defining a minimum backup frequency; and the determining whether to initiate the backup is further based on the minimum backup frequency (see abstract and other locations: time since last)
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 “the request … minimum backup frequency”, as taught by Ashokkumar, because each one of Ashokkumar and Liang teach determining backup start therefore they are analogous arts and because the motivational reasons specified in claim 6 rejection.
For claim 9
Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Liang does not explicitly the request for the backup of the application comprises a backup time; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises changing the backup time
However, Ashokkumar teaches the request for the backup of the application comprises a backup time; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises changing the backup time (see [0007] and other locations: backup schedule)
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 “the request for the backup of the application comprises a backup time; and the determining whether to initiate the backup comprises changing the backup time”, as taught by Ashokkumar, because each one of Ashokkumar and Liang teach determining backup start therefore they are analogous arts and because the motivational reasons specified in claim 6 rejection.
For claim 10
Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Liang does not explicitly the determining the system load level comprises determining a backup schedule associated with an additional application running on the container system
However, Ashokkumar 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)
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 “the determining the system load level comprises determining a backup schedule associated with an additional application running on the container system”, as taught by Ashokkumar, because each one of Ashokkumar and Liang teach determining backup start therefore they are analogous arts and because the motivational reasons specified in claim 6 rejection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2017/0126469 A1), and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0117283 A1).
For claim 11,
Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Liang 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 Liang to include “the determining the application load level … predicted system load level”, as taught by Wang, because each one of 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
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 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