FINAL REJECTION
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 .
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) 1-2, 8-10, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of United States Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”).
Regarding claim 1, Kodama teaches
A method for managing data center failures, the method being executed by one or more processors of a leader management node, and the method comprising: (Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0131]: a virtual volume module configures the replication of data storage systems)
allocating a first data node among a first plurality of data nodes a master data node, the first plurality of data nodes being in a first data center; (Fig. 5, [0048], [0133], [0135]: storage system A of storage systems in a first data center is designated as a primary storage system)
allocating a second data node among the first plurality of data nodes as a first backup data node; (Fig. 5, [0048], [0133], [0135]: storage system B of storage systems in a first data center is designated as a secondary storage system)
allocating one among a second plurality of data nodes as a second backup data node, the second plurality of data nodes being in a second data center, and the first data center and the second data center being located in different regions; and (Fig. 5, [0048], [0133], [0136]: storage system D of storage systems in a second data center at a different location is designated as a secondary storage system)
setting a data replication mode between the master data node, the first backup data node and the second backup data node, wherein the data replication mode is set to either a first mode or a second mode, (Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0135], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system B to be synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D to be synchronous or asynchronous)
wherein the data replication between the master data node and all among the first backup data node is performed in a synchronous replication mode, and data replication between the master data node and the second backup data node is performed in a synchronous replication mode or an asynchronous replication mode according to the first mode or the second mode, and (Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0135], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system B to be synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D to be synchronous or asynchronous)
the master data node performs the data replication with all among the first backup node in the synchronous replication mode by sending a response associated with a write request only in response to receiving an acknowledgement (ACK) from the first backup node (Kodama, [0125], [0135], [0136]: in synchronous replication, a response from the replication destination is required to respond to the host).
Kodama does not explicitly teach a plurality of first backup nodes.
Bezbaruah teaches a plurality of first backup nodes (col. 5 lines 24-48 – each primary can have more than on secondary node, replication is synchronous and requires acknowledgments from all secondaries prior ot completion at the primary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the multiple backup nodes of Bezbaruah with the replication of Kodama.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination because an increase in the number of backup nodes increases the durability of data and reduces the chance of data loss in the event of a failure.
Regarding claim 2, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the first mode prioritizes data stability over minimization of latency when providing a service in response to occurrence of a failure. (Kodama [0124]: synchronous replication prioritizes data stability over IO performance in response to a failure)
Regarding claim 8, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the second mode prioritizes minimization of latency in providing a service over data stability in response to occurrence of a failure. (Kodama [0124]: asynchronous replication prioritizes IO performance over data stability in response to a failure)
Regarding claim 9, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the setting comprises setting the data replication mode as the second mode including:
setting the plurality of first backup data nodes as a plurality of slave type backup data nodes; and (Kodama Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0135]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system B to be synchronous)
setting the second backup data node as a learner type backup data node. (Kodama Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system D to be asynchronous)
Regarding claim 10, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein data replication between the learner type backup data node and the master data node is performed based on asynchronous replication. (Kodama Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system D to be asynchronous)
Regarding claim 13, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
automatically changing one of the plurality of first backup data nodes to a new master data node without administrator input in response to determining that the master data node has failed while the data replication mode is set as the second mode. (Kodama [0039], [0140]: the virtual volume module triggers failover from storage system A to storage system B)
Regarding claim 16, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the leader management node is connected to one or more backup management nodes, the leader management node and the one or more backup management nodes being located in different data centers. (Kodama [0133], [0135]: standby virtual volume module in the data center in the other location)
Regarding claim 17, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein one of the one or more backup management nodes is changed to a new leader management node in response to occurrence of a failure in the leader management node. (Kodama [0142]: failover to from the active virtual volume module to the standby virtual volume module)
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of United States Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20160203202 (“Merriman”).
Regarding claim 3, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the setting comprises setting the data replication mode as the first mode including: (Kodama Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0135], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system B to be synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D to be synchronous)
setting the plurality of first backup data nodes as a plurality of first slave type backup data nodes; and (Kodama Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0135], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system B to be synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D to be synchronous)
setting the second backup data node as a second slave type backup data node, data replication between each of the plurality of first slave type backup data nodes and the second slave type backup data node with the master data node being performed based on synchronous replication, and (Kodama Fig. 5, [0047], [0048], [0135], [0136]: configuring replication between storage system A and storage system B to be synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D to be synchronous)
Kodama in view of Bezbaruah does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Merriman teaches
each of the plurality of first slave type backup data nodes and the second slave type backup data node is included as a new master candidate for a master election performed in response to failure of the master data node. ([0049]: master election in response to a failed master includes slaves in the same data center as the failed master and slaves in data centers in different geographic locations)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Merriman’s election with Kodama’s failover.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to automatically select the best candidate to failover (Merriman, [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah further teaches
automatically changing one of the plurality of first slave type backup data nodes or the second slave type backup data node to a new master data node without an administrator input in response to determining that the master data node has failed while the data replication mode is set as the first mode. (Kodama, [0039], [0140]: the virtual volume module triggers failover from storage system A to storage system B)
Regarding claim 6, Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the automatically changing includes assigning priority to the plurality of first backup data nodes in the master election in response to determining that the plurality of first backup data nodes is set as the plurality of first slave type backup data nodes located in the same data center as the master data node, and the second backup data node is set as the second slave type backup data node located in a data center different from the master data node. (Merriman, [0049]: slaves in the same data center as the failed master are given priority during election over slaves in different geographic locations)
Regarding claim 19, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Merriman teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of the method according to claim 1 ([0148]-[0150]: non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of the methods)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Merriman’s medium with Kodama-Bezbaruah’s method.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination because software-implemented methods can be stored in memory (Merriman, [0148]-[150]).
Claim(s) 20, the management node(s) that implement(s) the method(s) of claim(s) 1, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1, respectively.
Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah further teaches
A management node comprising: a memory storing one or more computer-readable programs; and one or more processors connected to the memory and configured to execute the one or more computer-readable programs to cause the management node to (Kodama, Fig. 5, [0047], [0048]: a virtual volume module. Merriman, [0148]-[0150]: system comprising a one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of the methods)
Claim(s) 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20160203202 (“Merriman”), US Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”) and US Patent No. 11061603 (“Bankar”).
Regarding claim 4, Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the synchronous replication includes: (Kodama, [0135], [0136]: in response to a request, replication between storage system A and storage system B is synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D is synchronous)
transmitting, by the master data node, a replication…to the plurality of first backup data nodes and the second backup data node in response to receiving a request; (Kodama, [0135], [0136]: in response to a request, replication between storage system A and storage system B is synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D is synchronous)
receiving, by the master data node, an acknowledgement (ACK) from all among the plurality of first backup data nodes and the second backup data node; and (Kodama, [0125], [0135], [0136]: in synchronous replication, a response from the replication destination is required)
outputting, by the master data node, a response associated with the request in response to receiving the ACK from all among the plurality of first backup data nodes and the second backup data node. (Kodama, [0125], [0135], [0136]: in synchronous replication, a response from the replication destination is required to respond to the host)
Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah does not teach replication log.
Bankar teaches
replication log (Col. 8, Lines 55-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-30: replication log)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Bankar’s replication log with Kodama’s replication.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to ensure that data is properly recovered after a disaster (Bankar, Col. 8, Lines 55-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 7, Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah further teaches
receiving an input for changing the data replication mode…to the second mode; and (Kodama, [0047], [0048], [0124]: users can select between synchronous and asynchronous replication)
setting the data replication mode to be the second mode in response to the receiving of the input. (Kodama, [0047], [0048], [0124]: users can select between synchronous and asynchronous replication)
Kodama in view of Merriman and Bezbaruah does not teach changing the data replication mode from the first mode to the second mode.
Bankar teaches
changing the data replication mode from the first mode to the second mode (Col. 12, Lines 55-67: switch from synchronous replication to asynchronous replication)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Bankar’s replication mode switch with Kodama’s replication.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to ensure that service requirements are met (Bankar, Col. 13, Lines 1-20).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of US Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”) and US Patent No. 11061603 (“Bankar”).
Regarding claim 11, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah further teaches
wherein the asynchronous replication includes:
transmitting, by the master data node, a replication…to the plurality of first backup data nodes and the second backup data node in response to receiving a request; (Kodama [0135], [0136]: in response to a request, replication between storage system A and storage system B is synchronous and replication between storage system A and storage system D is asynchronous)
receiving, by the master data node, an acknowledgement (ACK) from the plurality of first backup data nodes; and (Kodama [0125], [0135]: in synchronous replication, a response from the replication destination is required)
outputting, by the master data node, a response associated with the request in response to the receiving of the ACK from the plurality of first backup data nodes regardless of whether an ACK is received from the second backup data node. (Kodama [0125], [0135], [0136]: in synchronous replication, a response from the replication destination is required, and in asynchronous replication, a response from the replication destination is not required to respond to the host)
Kodama in view of Bezbaruah does not teach replication log.
Bankar teaches
replication log (Col. 8, Lines 55-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-30: replication log)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Bankar’s replication log with Kodama’s replication.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to ensure that data is properly recovered after a disaster (Bankar, Col. 8, Lines 55-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-30).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of US Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 20220206900 (“Zad Tootaghaj”).
Regarding claim 12, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Zad Tootaghaj teaches
wherein the learner type backup data node is excluded as a new master candidate for a master election that is performed in response to a failure of the master data node. (Fig. 1, [0042], [0053], [0077]: exclude a node in a non-local location from consideration in leader election)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Zad Tootaghaj’s location-aware election with Kodama’s failover.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to reduce latency between the leader and other nodes (Zad Tootaghaj, [0079]).
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of US Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 20240160539 (“Khatri”).
Regarding claim 14, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Khatri teaches
transmitting a message querying whether or not to change the second backup data node to a new master data node in response to determining that the master data node and the plurality of first backup data nodes have failed while the data replication mode is set as the second mode. (Fig. 1, [0019], [0023]: after a failure of a first region that includes a primary node and secondary nodes, vote on whether one of the secondary nodes in a second region should become the primary database)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Kathri’s cross-regional failover with Kodama’s cross-regional replication.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination to provide streamlined cross-regional failover (Kathri, [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah and Kathri further teaches
changing the second backup data node to the new master data node in response to receiving a corresponding request. (Kathri, [0021], [0023]: change votes for each node such that a new primary node is elected that resides in a different region than the failing region)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. No. 20060031594 (“Kodama”) in view of US Patent No. 7694086 (“Bezbaruah”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 20220207053 (“Mankad”).
Regarding claim 18, Kodama in view of Bezbaruah does not further teach the remaining limitations.
Mankad teaches
wherein the leader management node and the one or more backup management nodes are synchronized using a Raft protocol. (Mankad, [0084]: etcd consensus for administration database state transitions)
etcd uses the Raft algorithm for consensus and Mankad inherently discloses using a Raft protocol. See pg. 1 of Non-Patent Literature etcd README.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Mankad’s redundant administration consensus with Kodama’s redundant management.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination because etcd ensures consistency between management nodes (Mankad, [0084]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
The arguments are based on the Kodama reference failing to anticipate the newly amended claims. The rejection has been updated in light of the new combination of Kodama and newly cited Bezbaruah, wherein Bezbaruah is relied upon to teach the newly recited limitations at issue in the arguments.
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 MARC M DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 730am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
