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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7, 10-11, 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the linked list" in lines 6 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering this term to be referring back to “a preset linked list”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the storage node" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering this term to be referring back to “storage nodes”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation: “ sending, by the multi-path node, the write request information to any one of the storage nodes one by one, and storing, by any one of the storage nodes, the write request information to a doubly linked list set corresponding to any one of the storage nodes”. This limitation is stating that the write request information is being sent to any one of the storage nodes one by one. It is unclear what the phrase “one by one” means in the context of this claim limitation. It is unclear how you send the write request information to any one storage node, one by one. It is also unclear how any node can store the write request information to a doubly linked list set that corresponds to any storage node. If the write request information is sent to any one storage node, then that node must do the storing, not any node. Further the specification uses the term “doubly linked list” and “doubly linked list set”. It is not clear what the term “set” means or how these two terms are different.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the storage node" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering this term to be referring back to “storage nodes”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the doubly linked list set" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of a doubly linked list set in this claim or in claim 1. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering this term to be referring back to “a doubly linked list set”.
The scope of claim 11 is unclear because even with the interpretations in items 8 and 9 above, it is unclear what the correspondence is between the one doubly linked list set and each storage node is. The specification states on page 9 that each doubly linked list has a one-to-one correspondence to a particular storage node, not that the plurality of nodes share a doubly linked list. Further the specification uses the term “doubly linked list” and “doubly linked list set”. It is not clear what the term “set” means or how these two terms are different.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of them being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 9, 12-14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2018/0367610) and further in view of Chandrasekaran et al. (US 7,200,623).
Consider claim 1, Wang discloses a cache method applied to all-flash storage, wherein the method comprises: acquiring and storing, by a multi-path node, write request information, and sending the write request information to storage nodes, a number of the storage nodes being at least 2; generating, by the storage nodes, confirmation information corresponding to the write request information, and returning the confirmation information to the multi-path node; and determining a number of the confirmation information returned to the multi-path node (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], discloses a distributed node system where write requests are sent to the nodes from a master node, where the master node may or may not also participate in the storing of the write data, and if more than half on the nodes send back confirmation messages then it is assumed that the write operation and data consistency have been achieved.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose deleting the write information in the master node if half or more than half the nodes send back confirmation information and therefore Wang alone does not disclose: “and in a case that the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi-path node is not less than one half of the number of the storage nodes, deleting the write request information stored to the multi-path node.”. However, Chandrasekaran et al., discloses a distributed storage system where the state of writes are tracked in checkpoint queues associated with nodes and once data is written to storage then the entry associated with that write can be removed from the queues because data consistency has been achieved and this entry in the checkpoint queues is no longer needed in the case of a recovery (Chandrasekaran et al.: abstract, Col. 1 lines 36-53, Col. 2 lines 29-50, Col. 14 lines 25-28, Col. 15 lines 32-35, Col. 22-23 lines 61-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wang to include removing write request information entries associated with a completed and confirmed write operation in a distributed system as is done in Chandrasekaran et al. because doing so improves recovery time (Chandrasekaran et al.: col. 2 lines 24-29).
Consider claim 2, Wang in view of Chandrasekaran et al. discloses the cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to The cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to wherein the acquiring and storing, by a multi-path node, write request information comprises: acquiring, by the multi-path node, the write request information, and storing the write request information to a preset linked list (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], write requests are sent to the master node and distributed to the rest of the nodes. Chandrasekaran et al.: abstract, Col. 1 lines 36-53, Col. 2 lines 29-50, Col. 14 lines 25-28, Col. 15 lines 32-35, Col. 22-23 lines 61-14, discloses that checkpoint queues are used at each node which can be linked lists for storing write requests.); determining, based on a data storage capacity of the linked list, whether a data volume of the write request information exceeds the data storage capacity of the linked list (Chandrasekaran et al.: abstract, Col. 1 lines 36-53, Col. 2 lines 29-50, Col. 14 lines 25-28, Col. 15 lines 32-35, Col. 22-23 lines 61-14, entries can be added to the queue and therefore has determined that an entry can fit in the queue/linked list); and stopping, by the multi-path node, sending the write request information to the storage node in a case that the data volume of the write request information exceeds the data storage capacity of the linked list (this limitation only applies if the storage capacity is exceeded and since the combination of references teaching being able to add entries to the checkpoint queue/linked list this limitation is not required to occur in a method claim. See MPEP section 2111.04 II. Contingent limitations “Schulhauser”.).
Consider claim 8, Wang in view of Chandrasekaran et al. discloses the cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: when the multi-path node stops sending the write request information to the storage nodes, continuing to acquire the write request information by the multi-path node (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], the master node sends out write requests and waits for confirmation messages.).
Consider claim 9, Wang in view of Chandrasekaran et al. discloses the cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to claim 8, wherein the continuing to acquire the write request information by the multi-path node comprises: continuing to acquire, by the multi-path node, the write request information sent by a business application (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], the master node sends out write requests and waits for confirmation messages. The write requests come from a client running programs.).
Consider claim 12, Wang in view of Chandrasekaran et al. discloses the cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation information comprises node identifiers of the storage nodes (Wang: [0047]).
Consider claim 13, Wang in view of Chandrasekaran et al. discloses the cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to claim 12, wherein after the confirmation information is returned to the multi-path node, the method further comprises: confirming, by the multi-path node, the node identifier in the confirmation information based on the confirmation information returned by the storage node so as to ensure that the number of the confirmation information sent by the storage node to the multi-path node is one (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], a group in a cluster can send one confirmation.).
Consider claim 14, Wang in view of Chandrasekaran et al. discloses the cache method applied to the all-flash storage according to claim 13, wherein the determining the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi-path node comprises: determining the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi- path node in a case that the number of the confirmation information sent by the storage node to the multi-path node is one (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], a group in a cluster can send one confirmation.).
Consider claim 19, Wang discloses an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, the memory is configured to store computer program, the processor is configured to execute the computer program to: acquire and store, by a multi-path node, write request information, and send the write request information to storage nodes, the number of the storage nodes being at least 2; generate, by the storage nodes, confirmation information corresponding to the write request information, and return the confirmation information to the multi-path node; and determine the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi-path node (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], discloses a distributed node system where write requests are sent to the nodes from a master node, where the master node may or may not also participate in the storing of the write data, and if more than half on the nodes send back confirmation messages then it is assumed that the write operation and data consistency have been achieved.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose deleting the write information in the master node if half or more than half the nodes send back confirmation information and therefore Wang alone does not disclose: “and in a case that the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi-path node is not less than one half of the number of the storage nodes, delete the write request information stored to the multi-path node.”. However, Chandrasekaran et al., discloses a distributed storage system where the state of writes are tracked in checkpoint queues associated with nodes and once data is written to storage then the entry associated with that write can be removed from the queues because data consistency has been achieved and this entry in the checkpoint queues is no longer needed in the case of a recovery (Chandrasekaran et al.: abstract, Col. 1 lines 36-53, Col. 2 lines 29-50, Col. 14 lines 25-28, Col. 15 lines 32-35, Col. 22-23 lines 61-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wang to include removing write request information entries associated with a completed and confirmed write operation in a distributed system as is done in Chandrasekaran et al. because doing so improves recovery time (Chandrasekaran et al.: col. 2 lines 24-29).
Consider claim 20, Wang discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, configured to store a computer program, when executed by a processor, the computer program is configured to cause the processor to acquire and store, by a multi-path node, write request information, and send the write request information to storage nodes, the number of the storage nodes being at least2generate, by the storage nodes, confirmation information corresponding to the write request information, and return the confirmation information to the multi-path node; and determine the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi-path node (Wang: abstract, background, [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0040], discloses a distributed node system where write requests are sent to the nodes from a master node, where the master node may or may not also participate in the storing of the write data, and if more than half on the nodes send back confirmation messages then it is assumed that the write operation and data consistency have been achieved.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose deleting the write information in the master node if half or more than half the nodes send back confirmation information and therefore Wang alone does not disclose: “and in a case that the number of the confirmation information returned to the multi- path node is not less than one half of the number of the storage nodes, delete the write request information stored to the multi-path node.”. However, Chandrasekaran et al., discloses a distributed storage system where the state of writes are tracked in checkpoint queues associated with nodes and once data is written to storage then the entry associated with that write can be removed from the queues because data consistency has been achieved and this entry in the checkpoint queues is no longer needed in the case of a recovery (Chandrasekaran et al.: abstract, Col. 1 lines 36-53, Col. 2 lines 29-50, Col. 14 lines 25-28, Col. 15 lines 32-35, Col. 22-23 lines 61-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wang to include removing write request information entries associated with a completed and confirmed write operation in a distributed system as is done in Chandrasekaran et al. because doing so improves recovery time (Chandrasekaran et al.: col. 2 lines 24-29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights